Davis v. Curtis
| Decision Date | 17 December 1885 |
| Citation | 68 Iowa 66,25 N.W. 932 |
| Parties | DAVIS AND OTHERS v. CURTIS AND OTHERS. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Jones district court.
This is a proceeding under the statute by which the plaintiffs seek to permanently establish the lines and corners of certain lands, which corners are alleged to be lost, destroyed, and in dispute. The defendants resisted the proceeding, and objected to the appointment of a commission. The district court appointed three commissioners, and they made a majority and a minority report, which were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the same commissioners. Additional evidence was taken, and a second majority and minority report were filed. The majority report fixed the corners to the satisfaction of the plaintiffs, while the minority report met the approval of the defendants. The court approved and confirmed the majority report, and the defendants appeal.J. W. Jamison, for appellants, N. J. Curtis and others.
Remley & Ereanbrack, for appellees, G. W. Davis and others.
1. The abstract of appellants purports to be an abstract of all the evidence taken before the commissioners, and filed with their report. Counsel for appellees seek to dispose of the appeal by filing an additional abstract setting out a bill of exceptions, and they claim that the evidence was not properly made of record. It is a sufficient answer in reply to this position to say that no bill of exceptions was necessary. Section 3 of the act authorizing this proceeding requires that the evidence, plat, and survey shall “accompany” the report. It is thus made part of the report, and becomes of record the same as the report. There is no necessity for a bill of exceptions of any matter which is of record.
2. Other objections are made to the abstract and to the assignment of errors. We need not examine them, because we think that the appeal must be determined upon the merits and upon the final report. So far as this question is involved, the record is complete, and the assignment of error is sufficiently explicit. All questions, therefore, pertaining to the authority to appoint the commission, and whether a proper case was made by the plaintiffs to invoke the action of the court, and the authority of the court to remand the cause to the commission upon setting aside the first report, will not be considered.
3. The whole controversy, as shown by the majority and minority reports, depends upon the location of the common corner of sections 19, 20, 29, and 30, township 83, range 4 west. It appears that when the land in these sections, as well as the land along the extension of the line between the sections to the south, was improved, many years ago, the corners and lines as claimed by the defendants were, by general consent, adopted as the true boundaries of the lands of the respective owners. Roads were laid out, fences built, hedges set, and buildings erected in the belief that the line and corner thus recognized were those established by the government survey.
In the year 1866, D. L. Blakeslee, who was then county surveyor, establishedthe corner of said sections at the point now claimed by the defendants; and the evidence shows, without conflict, that this corner was recognized by the adjoining land-owners as the true corner until the year 1875, when other surveys were made at the instance of the plaintiffs, or those under whom they claim, by which it is claimed that the line should be located some two and a half rods to the east of the line established by the Blakeslee survey. But the fences of the respective parties remained upon the line of the Blakeslee survey, and they now so remain. This proceeding was commenced in 1883. The evidence shows that a corner was marked at the point fixed by the Blakeslee survey long before that survey was made, and that from the year 1859 down to 1875, a period of 16 years, all parties interested acquiesced...
To continue reading
Request your trial