Anderson v. Buchanan

• Decision Date: 08 June 1908
• Parties: ANDERSON v. BUCHANAN ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

139 Iowa 676

116 N.W. 694

ANDERSON

v.BUCHANAN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 8, 1908.

Appeal from District Court, Jackson County; A. P. Parker, Judge.

Action to quiet title to real property. There was a decree for the defendants, from which plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Thomas & Thomas and Keck & Keck, for appellant.

W. H. Palmer and Murray & Farr, for appellee.

McCLAIN, J.

Plaintiff shows a good paper title to the premises in controversy, which for present purposes may be described as lot 4, and a narrow strip about five or six feet wide along the south side of lot 3 adjoining it on the north in block 22 of Goodenow's addition to the city of Maquoketa. Plaintiff occupies with his house and barn the principal portion of lot 3 and all of lot 2, while defendant has unquestioned title to property south and east of the disputed territory. Defendant's paper title does not cover any portion of lots 3 and 4, but he claims that, when he purchased his premises lying south and east of the disputed territory as above indicated, plaintiff represented to him that the premises so purchased extended to a certain fence then and still in existence, which is, in fact, five or six feet north of the south line of lot 3, and defendants claim to have been in possession to this fence from the time of their purchase, more than 10 years prior to the bringing of this suit; such possession and occupancy of the defendants being with the knowledge and acquiescence of the plaintiff. The only response which plaintiff makes to these claims of defendants is that within 10 years after acquiring title the defendant J. Y. Buchanan, holder of the legal title, stated in the presence of plaintiff to the city attorney, who was investigating the lines of an adjoining street, that he made no claim to any other property than that covered by his abstract and deed. It does not appear that, when this statement was made, said defendant knew where the lines were which were called for by his deed which described his premises, not by lots and blocks, but by metes and bounds, with reference to a starting point at some distance from the boundary of the premises in controversy. There is no showing that said defendant did not at all times claim title to and occupy the premises up to the fence, or that he at any time conceded that the fence was not the real boundary. Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that defendants by occupancy up to the fence for more than 10 years with...