City of Bedford v. Willard

Decision Date14 February 1893
Citation33 N.E. 368,133 Ind. 562
PartiesCITY OF BEDFORD v. WILLARD.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from circuit court, Lawrence county; R. W. Miers, Judge.

Action by James H. Willard against the city of Bedford to recover the possession of, and to quiet the title to, a certain tract of land. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Dunn & Palmer, for appellant. J. H. Willard and Crooke & Owen, for appellee.

OLDS, J.

The appellee brought this action against the appellant in the court below to recover possession of, and to quiet the title to, a certain piece or parcel of land in the complaint described. The complaint is in two paragraphs. One paragraph seeks to have the title quieted, and the other is for the possession of the real estate. Issue was joined by the answer of general denial. On proper request the court made a special finding of facts, and stated its conclusions of law. By the finding of facts it appears that in 1826 there was conveyed to one Robert M. Carlton, agent for Lawrence county, by one Robert Kilgore, in consideration of the relocation of the seat of justice of Lawrence county, and that a part of the town be located thereon, and for the sole use of and benefit of Lawrence county, a certain tract of land, described in the finding, which includes the tract in controversy; that, immediately after receiving said conveyance, said agent platted and recorded said real estate, with other lands, and on which was located the town (now city) of Bedford, in said Lawrence county, which, with the streets, alleys, squares, and lots as then platted, is now a part of said city. It is further found that, in laying out and platting said town, all of said real estate was not platted; that, giving to all streets, alleys, squares, and lots their full width, there remained a strip on the south side of the plat, and off the south side of the tract so conveyed to said agent, 32 feet in width, which has been inclosed by the appellee and his grantor, and possessed by them continuously and uninterruptedly, and used by them uninterruptedly, for a period of 30 years prior to March, 1890, and prior to the commencement of this action; that in March, 1890, the mayor and common council, by a resolution, ordered that all streets and alleys in said original plat in the town be opened, and also the 32 feet of ground in controversy, and in pursuance of said order, by direction of the city authorities, the fences inclosing the same were taken down by the officers; that on the 8th day of March, 1890, the board of commissioners of said county conveyed said strip to the city of Bedford, the same being sold and conveyed at private sale, without notice, in consideration of one dollar. Conclusions of law were stated in favor of the appellee.

The sole question presented and discussed by counsel for appellants is that the statute of limitations did not run against the city or county, and hence no title could be acquired by possession. It is contended that the finding of facts shows that the land was conveyed to the agent of the county for the sole use of the county, to be platted with other lands as a town, to be the county seat of the county, and that the land was thereby conveyed...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT