Crapo v. Cameron

• Decision Date: 19 September 1883
• Citation: 61 Iowa 447,16 N.W. 523
• Parties: CRAPO, EX'R, ETC., v. CAMERON.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

61 Iowa 447

16 N.W. 523

CRAPO, EX'R, ETC.,

v.CAMERON.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed September 19, 1883.

Appeal from Des Moines circuit court.

This is an action to recover compensation for one-half of an alleged wall in common, and for one-half of the ground upon which it rests. The cause was tried to the court, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for $510. The defendant appeals. The material facts are stated in the opinion.Hall & Houston, for appellant.

P. Henry Smyth & Son, for appellee.

DAY, C. J.

In 1858 or 1859 one Leffler owned the west 40 feet of the east half of lot 193 in the city of Burlington, and erected thereon a four-story brick building, known as the Armstrong building, extending back 60 feet. The adjoining lot west belonged to the defendant, then a minor, and his guardian had leased it for a term of years to A. J. Cooper, who erected thereon a twostory brick, fastening the joists and beams in the Armstrong wall, and making that answer the purpose of his east wall. Shortly after this Armstrong purchased the Leffler property, and owned and occupied it to the time of his death. Cooper assigned his term, and sold his building to Lahee and Ripley, who paid Armstrong $40 a year in quarterly installments for the use of the wall or wall rent. These parties assigned to R. W. Washburn, who became the owners of the building, and continued to pay ground rent to Cameron and wall rent to Armstrong up to 1874, when his lease expired, and Cameron purchased and became the owner of the building. At this time Washburn leased both the lot and building of Cameron, and from that on up to June 15, 1876, paid the wall rent to Armstrong, and charged the same to the account of Cameron by the latter's direction. In the latter part of 1876, Armstrong died, and the plaintiff, his executor, went to Cameron to collect wall rent, and he referred him to Washburn, who paid $20 for the use of the wall for six months, expiring about the time of Armstrong's death. During this time all of the parties supposed the entire wall of the Armstrong building was located upon the Leffler or Armstrong lot. When the plaintiff called upon defendant for another installment of rent, he claimed to have discovered that the wall of the Armstrong building was almost entirely upon the Cameron lot, and he refused to pay any more rent. In November, 1877, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover $20 for wall rent claimed to have become due June 1, 1877. December 20, 1879, plaintiff filed a supplemental petition claiming judgment for $100 additional, for five semi-annual installments alleged to have accrued since the filing of the original petition. October 22, 1881, the plaintiff filed a supplemental petition claiming $60 for three additional installments. At the same time the plaintiff filed an amendment to his petition, claiming of the defendant $800 as the reasonable value of one-half of the wall and the ground upon which it stands. The defendant filed an answer, consisting of a general denial and a plea of the statute of limitations.

1. Against the objection of the defendant the plaintiff was permitted to introduce evidence that Lahee and Ripley and Washburn agreed in parol to pay Armstrong $40 a year as wall rent. The admitting of this evidence is assigned as error. Section 2030 of the Code provides that no evidence of special agreements between adjoining proprietors about walls on the lines between them shall be competent unless it be in writing, signed by the parties thereto or their lawfully authorized agents. Under this section evidence of an oral agreement is not competent; still, from the amount of the judgment, it clearly appears that the court allowed the plaintiff for one-half of the wall and the ground upon which it rested, and not for the rent of the wall. Therefore, whatever error there was in the admission of this evidence, was error without prejudice.

2. The...