Brown v. Taber

• Citation: 103 Iowa 1,72 N.W. 416
• Parties: BROWN v. TABER.
• Decision Date: 07 October 1897
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

103 Iowa 1

72 N.W. 416

BROWN

v.TABER.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 7, 1897.

Appeal from district court, Hardin county; S. M. Weaver, Judge.

Action to quiet title to a vacated street between outlot 3 and block 7 in the Railroad addition to Eldora. Decree for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.Albrook & Lundy, for appellant.

Chas. L. Hays, for appellee.

LADD, J.

The land platted belonged to C. C. and Abbie W. Gilman. The plat was filed in June, 1877, and that portion known as “Hammond Street” was by them vacated in December following. In the meantime none of the abutting lots had been conveyed, and no evidence was offered tending to show that the dedication of the street had been accepted. The title thereto did not vest in the city without acceptance. City of Waterloo v. Union Mill Co., 72 Iowa, 437, 34 N. W. 197;Incorporated Town of Cambridge v. Cook (Iowa) 66 N. W. 884;Manderschid v. City of Dubuque, 29 Iowa, 73;Bell v. City of Burlington, 68 Iowa, 296, 27 N. W. 245;Johnson v. City of Burlington (Iowa) 63 N. W. 694;Taraldson v. Town of Lime Springs (Iowa) 60 N. W. 658; Code 1873, § 527; Laughlin v. City of Washington, 63 Iowa, 652, 9 N. W. 819. As the conveyance was not accepted, the proprietors of the plat remained owners of the land included in the street, and, having disposed of none of the abutting lots, were free to vacate it, under the provisions of section 564 of the Code of 1873. After vacating the street, it was conveyed by Gilman and wife to Hardin, and then to John Hall, and also by Hardin to Hall. The defendant urges that this evidence was offered by him, and that the plaintiff failed to trace his title back to the government. A sufficient answer to this complaint is that both parties claim under Hall, and it was quite enough to prove derivation from him, without proving his title. 2 Greenl. Ev. 307; Cooley v. Brayton, 16 Iowa, 10;Byers v. Rodabaugh, 17 Iowa, 53.

2. The conveyance from Hall to plaintiff includes the vacated street, and, unless the description in the deed from Hall to King, some months previous, transferred the title to the latter, the plaintiff is owner of the land in controversy. As defendant only obtained the interest King took, his deed need not be considered. Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 constitute block 7, which lies northwest of Hammond street, and outlot 3 to the southeast; and these are the only abutting lots. The description in the deed to King simply mentions the numbers of these lots, without specific reference to the vacated street. It is insisted that a proportionate part of the street became a part of each lot, and passed with it to King. Sections 565 and 567 of the Code of 1873 are relied on. These relate distinctly to the owners of lots vacated. When vacated, the force and effect of the execution and recording of that part of the plat is destroyed. Sections 563, 564. Section 567 only provides for replatting, and what shall be included in such event. The lots, having been vacated, and the proportionate part of the street, may be platted and numbered again for convenience in conveying and assessing the property. If the previous numbers were retained, and the proportionate part of the street becomes part of the lot, this would be entirely unnecessary. Here the lots have not been vacated, and in determining what a deed of them by number conveys it becomes important to consider the purpose in platting land. Section 559 requires this to be done with reference to some known or permanent monuments, and to “accurately describe all the subdivisions of such tract or parcel of land, numbering the same by progressive numbers, and giving the dimensions and length and breadth thereof, and the breadth and courses of all streets and alleys established therein. Descriptions of lots or parcels of land in such subdivisions according to the number and designation thereof on said plat contained, in conveyance or for the purposes of taxation, shall be deemed good and valid for all intents and purposes.” The reference to lots by number thus becomes as definite and certain...