City of Racine v. J. I. Case Plow Co.
| Decision Date | 09 January 1883 |
| Citation | 56 Wis. 539,14 N.W. 599 |
| Parties | CITY OF RACINE v. J. I. CASE PLOW CO. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Racine county.Winslow & Bronson and Fish & Dodge, for appellant, city of Racine.
F. C. Winkler and H. A. Cooper, for respondent, J. I. Case Plow Company.
The complaint is for an injunction to restrain the defendant company from encroaching upon Water street, in Harbour addition to the village (now city) of Racine, by constructing buildings upon block 15 projecting into said street, and for the removal and abatement of any such projections already constructed within such street, and for the establishment of said street according to the survey and plat of said addition, and as marked thereon. The answer denies the encroachment, and raises the only question in the case, and that is, what is the true location of Water street according to the plat and survey? By the courses and distances appearing on the plat and survey, there appeared to be no encroachment, and that the north side of the street was far south of the constructions complained of. The courses and distances, if relied on in determining the true lines and boundaries of the streets and lots in this addition, will very materially change all the north and south lines of all of the streets, blocks, and lots from those which had been generally and uniformly recognized and acquiesced in, and according to which they have been occupied and used, and to which the buildings and improvements on the lots, and contiguous to the streets, have been adjusted for over 30 years after the same was platted, and would cast all the lines into confusion, and create conflict and litigation in respect to the whole plat; and this would probably be the result, in at least a majority of cities and villages, by adhering to such a criterion in determining the location of their streets and lots. The original plats, maps, and surveys of western cities and villages, in respect to figures of measurement, and courses and distances marked thereon, in a large majority of cases have been found notably imperfect, incorrect, and unreliable.
The early settlers, who first buy and build upon the lots, do not attempt to ascertain their lines by a computation of measurements of all the other lots and blocks by the figures on the plat, or stated in the certificate of survey, or the courses and distances marked thereon, or by a resurvey from the starting point of the first one. But they consult the stakes, and other monuments and land-marks, either natural or artificial, fixed and placed at the time of the original survey, if any, and such is generally the case, and such is the method adopted by those who buy and build afterwards, if such land-marks still exist; and afterwards, and after such monuments or land-marks have been destroyed or removed, such lines are ascertained by constructions of a permanent character which were built according to such original monuments, and finally, as time goes on, long usage, prescription, antiquity, and reputation may be the only means of determining the true lines and boundaries, and these methods in this order are to be preferred to courses and distances and figures marked on the original plat and survey, as the higher degrees of evidence. At almost any time in the course of municipal history, to rely upon the figures, courses, and distances of the original plat and survey, or upon a resurvey upon the data thereof, would be utterly subversive of the rights of real property, and of public and private interests. So far as the figures, courses, and distances on the plat and certificate of survey of this addition is concerned, it is candidly admitted by the learned counsel of the respondent that the 304 feet mentioned in such certificate as the north and south extension of the block directly south of and contiguous to the Water street in question is obviously a mistake, and does not agree by some 95 feet with the figures designating the width of the lots in said block, and it is argued that it is a mistake because they do not agree. This shows the utter unreliability of such figures, courses, and distances marked on the plat and survey, for who can say what figures shall be taken as correct when they do not agree. And yet the circuit court predicated its findings for the defendant in this case upon such evidence alone.
But, without further argument, the rules of evidence in such cases have become so...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. City of Beloit
...given by the parties by acts of occupation or recognition of monuments or boundaries is admissible.” The City of Racine v. The J. I. Case Plow Co., 56 Wis. 539, 14 N. W. 599. So it has been held that a finding fixing the line of a street is “sustained by evidence that the street was origina......
-
City of Madison v. Mayers
...might be cited in support of that proposition. Marsh v. Mitchell, 25 Wis. 706;Nys v. Biemeret, 44 Wis. 104;City of Racine v. J. I. Case Plow Co., 56 Wis. 539, 14 N. W. 599;State v. Schwin, 65 Wis. 207, 26 N. W. 568;Miner v. Brader, 65 Wis. 537, 27 N. W. 313;Hrouska v. Janke, 66 Wis. 252, 28......
-
Kleven v. Gunderson
...marks; (3) courses and distances. Yanish v. Tarbox, 49 Minn. 268, 51 N. W. 1051;Bolton v. Lann, 16 Tex. 96;City of Racine v. Case Plow Co., 56 Wis. 539, 14 N. W. 599;Allen v. Kersey, 104 Ind. 1, 3 N. E. 557;Sayers v. Lyons, 10 Iowa, 249. Few legal propositions are so universally accepted as......
-
Lewis v. Prien
...testified to on the trial. That was a proper way to proceed in view of the controversy on which the case turned. City of Racine v. J. I. Case Plow Co., 56 Wis. 539, 14 N. W. 599;Miner v. Brader, 65 Wis. 537, 27 N. W. 313; and City of Madison v. Mayers (recently decided) 73 N. W. 43. True, i......