Beyer v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
| Decision Date | 14 December 1918 |
| Docket Number | 32004 |
| Citation | 169 N.W. 651,186 Iowa 1133 |
| Parties | MINERVA BEYER, Appellee, v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON REHEARING JULY 10, 1919.
Appeal from Black Hawk District Court.--H. B. BOIES, Judge.
SUIT in equity to quiet title, and for damages to real estate. Decree and judgment in favor of plaintiff. Defendant appeals.--Reversed and remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
F. W Sargent, Pickett, Swisher & Farwell, and J. H. Johnson, for appellant.
Sager Sweet & Edwards, for appellee.
Plaintiff is the owner of a one-acre tract of land, somewhat triangular in form, located on the east side of and between a highway known as the Waterloo and LaPorte City road, and the right of way of the defendant railway company. She derived title thereto, through several mesne conveyances, from James Miles, who was the owner thereof, and planted a large number of fruit and ornamental trees thereon in 1893, several of which were located upon a narrow strip now claimed by the defendant as a part of its right of way; and this strip forms the subject of this litigation. The defendant acquired its right of way by deed, which conveyed to it a strip of land 25 feet in width on each side of the center line of the railroad, to have, hold, and enjoy forever, for any and all uses and purposes in any way connected with the construction, preservation, occupation, and enjoyment thereof, provided, however, that, in case defendant ceased to permanently use its road, or if same should be abandoned or the route changed, then the land granted should revert to the grantors, or to their heirs or assigns.
The strip of land in controversy lies immediately west of defendant's right of way fence, and at its widest place is approximately 4 feet and 8 inches in width. On June 3, 1914, defendant's employees entered and cut the trees upon the disputed strip, and plaintiff claims that they also cut a cherry tree upon her premises outside thereof. Suit was brought by her for damages on account of the removal of the trees. Defendant filed answer and cross-petition, setting up its right, under the above deed, to a strip 25 feet in width as a right of way on each side of the center of its road, and claimed the right to possession of the disputed strip as a part thereof, subject only to the right of reversion, as above stated. Upon the issues joined, the cause, upon motion of defendant, was transferred to and tried in equity.
Plaintiff's claim to the disputed tract is based upon adverse possession and acquiescence by defendant in the right of way fence for more than ten years, as the true boundary line between its right of way and plaintiff's premises.
It was stipulated by the parties upon the trial that the right of way fence at the point nearest the highway crossing was 20 feet and 4 inches from the center of defendant's road, and, at a point 6 rail lengths south thereof, 21 feet and 8 inches from the center of the track, thus leaving a narrow strip of defendant's original right of way of approximately 4 feet in width outside of its right of way fence. The stipulation further provided that plaintiff and her grantors had cultivated the ground up to the fence, and had gathered the fruit growing thereon, and that they had been in possession thereof during all the time since the fence was erected, many years ago.
Testimony was offered by plaintiff to the effect that, about 15 years before this controversy arose, and while Miles owned the same, defendant's employees attempted to change the right of way fence at the place in question, and dug a string of post holes on her premises 50 feet west of the center of defendant's track, but that, upon investigation, it was found that the right of way deed conveyed a strip to defendant of only 25 feet in width on each side of the center of its road; and the proposed erection of the fence along the line of the post holes was abandoned, and the fence reconstructed on its original line.
Defendant's track approaches the premises of plaintiff from the south in a northwesterly direction; but, before reaching the same, curves farther to the northwest, and continues to curve until the crossing over the Waterloo and LaPorte City highway is passed. There was a large number of trees standing on the north end of plaintiff's premises, which extended from the railroad right of way to the highway fence. The reason assigned by defendant for removing the trees from the disputed strip is that they were thick, and the longer branches extended over the right of way so far that they touched the cab of a passing engine, thereby obstructing the view of travelers approaching the highway crossing from the south, so that they could not see a northbound train until the crossing was reached. It was claimed by defendant that the obstruction caused by the trees rendered the crossing dangerous, and that several fatal accidents had occurred there. The evidence does not, however, show that they were due to the presence of the trees; but the crossing was doubtless rendered more dangerous by them, and same were a menace to the safety of travelers upon the highway.
The contention of counsel for appellant is that it never abandoned the strip in controversy, and that, in so far as the same was occupied and used by plaintiff and her grantors, the use was permissive only, and that possession thereof by appellant was not taken until it became necessary, in the operation of its road; that the doctrine of adverse possession and acquiescence are not applicable to the facts; that plaintiff did not hold possession of the disputed strip adverse to the defendant; that the right of way fence was not on the line, nor was it ever so treated; and that plaintiff acquired no right or title to said strip by reason of the long-continued occupancy and use thereof by herself and grantors.
Both parties rely upon former decisions of this court to sustain their respective theories, and we will, therefore, briefly review a few of the cited cases. There is considerable lack of harmony in the decisions of other jurisdictions; but this court announced the rule applicable to the facts of this case in Barlow v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 29 Iowa 276, which has been followed up to the present time, as appears from what follows. In that case, it was held that the statute of limitations does not apply, where the easement was acquired by deed; and that no length of mere non-user will operate to impair or defeat the right of way; and that the use of the premises under consideration by the plaintiff, as shown in that case, for the statutory period, was not adverse to the rights of defendant.
The facts in the case at bar and those in Slocumb v. C., B. & Q. R. Co., 57 Iowa 675, 11 N.W. 641, are quite similar. In that case, plaintiff had occupied a portion of the defendant's right of way outside of its right of way fence for more than ten years, had planted the same to shrubbery and fruit trees, and had done grading and filling thereon, for the purpose of improving and beautifying the same. In that case, the court held that, as the defendant was entitled to a right of way 100 feet in width, or 50 feet from the center of the railway track on each side, plaintiff was charged with notice of the extent of defendant's right of way, and could readily have ascertained the true width thereof. The court said:
"The plaintiff's possession was not adverse to, nor inconsistent with, the right of defendant to occupy the whole right of way, whenever it became necessary or desirable for it to do so."
Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Hanken, 140 Iowa 372, 118 N.W. 527, and Iowa Cent. R. Co. v. Homan, 151 Iowa 404, 131 N.W. 878, are cited in the briefs of both appellant and appellee, but principal reliance is placed by defendant upon our holding in Helmick v. Davenport, R. I. & N.W. R. Co., 174 Iowa 558, 156 N.W. 736.
The court, in Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Hanken, supra, discusses the conflict in the authorities in other jurisdictions, but re-affirms the doctrine of Slocumb v. C., B. & Q. R. Co., supra. We quote the following from the opinion:
The court emphasized the fact that the land in controversy had never been devoted to public use, and it was not shown that same would ever be needed by the plaintiff in the transaction of its business, and, therefore, the doctrine of the Slocumb case was not applicable.
The court, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beyer v. Chi., R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
...186 Iowa 1133169 N.W. 651BEYERv.CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO.No. 32004.Supreme Court of Iowa.Dec. 14, ... City road, and the right of way of the defendant railway company. She derived title thereto through several mesne ... Southern Pacific Co. v. Hyatt, 132 Cal. 240, 64 Pac. 272, 54 L. R. A. 522; ... ...