Dunkel v. Roth

• Decision Date: 07 November 1941
• Docket Number: No. 32734.,32734.
• Citation: 211 Minn. 194,300 N.W. 610
• Parties: DUNKEL v. ROTH et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

300 N.W. 610

211 Minn. 194

DUNKEL v. ROTH et al.

No. 32734.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

November 7, 1941.

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Albin S. Pearson, Judge.

Action by Fred W. Dunkel against Alvin C. Roth and others and the Midway National Bank of St. Paul, an additional defendant, to determine a boundary line between certain lots. From an adverse judgment, defendants Alvin C. and Mary A. Roth appeal.

Affirmed.

Thos. J. Newman, of St. Paul, for appellants.

Jack Tarbox, of St. Paul, for respondent.

JULIUS J. OLSON, Justice.

This was a statutory action to determine the boundary line between lots 17 and 18 in block 59, Arlington Hills Addition to St. Paul, pursuant to 2 Mason Minn.St.1927, § 9590. After trial had and findings made, judgment was entered, and defendants appeal.

The facts may be thus summarized: Block 59 is bounded on the east by Arcade street, on the south by Minnehaha street. Both are located upon section lines. As to the court's finding of the true plat location of the line between the mentioned lots, we find no difficulty in sustaining the court. On this phase, in defendants' "view of this case, it is really unimportant where the true platted line between Lots 17 and 18 was because [they think] the evidence conclusively shows a line of practical location defined unmistakably by the picket fence, the west side of the barn, and the west side of the driveway on defendants' property and by the east side of the stone wall on plaintiff's lot." In respect to the location of the picket fence and the barn, both of which extended over the plat lot line and encroached upon plaintiff's lot (a strip about 81 feet in length), the court found for defendants, upon the theory that they and their predecessors in possession had gained title thereto by adverse possession. In respect to the plat line south thereof to Minnehaha street (a strip of about 46 feet in length), the court found against defendants. So the real question here is whether that finding is sustained by the evidence.

The boundary line between the lots is a fraction over 127 feet in length. It runs due north and south, both lots fronting upon Minnehaha street. The property was originally platted in 1872. Some years thereafter St. Paul relocated the section corner, and a standard city plat showing that fact was duly made and officially filed. Both plats were received in evidence.

Plaintiff is admittedly the owner of lot 17. Defendants are the owners as joint tenants of lot 18. Both plaintiff and defendants took title according to the recorded plat of Arlington Hills Addition to St. Paul.

Defendants by their answer do not claim to be the owners of any part of lot 17 but assert that the disputed strip "lies entirely east of the boundary line" between the two lots. And plaintiff in his brief says: "It is to be noticed that there is no allegation of an intention to claim adversely or that the [defendants'] possession is under a claim of right." Therefore, so he claims, these "essential elements of adverse possession" being absent, defendants can claim no more than the land lying within the true lot line. However, as plaintiff has not appealed, we are not concerned with the question of whether the court rightly decided that defendants had obtained title to the northerly portion of the disputed strip by adverse possession. There only remains for decision here whether the evidence is such as to compel the conclusion that as to the southerly strip there is "a practical location" of the boundary line.

1. The principles of law to be applied were so well stated by Mr. Justice Brown in Benz v. City of St. Paul, 89 Minn. 31, 38, 93 N.W. 1038, 1039, that they should be quoted: "The practical location of a boundary line can be established in one of three ways only: (1) The location relied upon must have been acquiesced in for a sufficient length of time to bar a right of entry under the statute of limitations; (2) the line must have been expressly agreed upon between the parties claiming the land on both sides thereof, and afterwards acquiesced in; or (3) the party whose rights are to be barred must, with knowledge of the true line, have silently looked on while the other party encroached upon it, and subjected himself to expense in regard to the land, which he would not have done had the line been in dispute."

That case has been cited, applied, and followed in numerous cases since, one of the latest being Lenzmeier v. Ess, 199 Minn. 10, 14, 270 N.W. 677.

2. To determine whether defendants have brought themselves within any one of the "three ways" as limited and defined in the Benz case, a further recital of the facts is deemed necessary: Plaintiff's house is located upon his lot 17 facing Minnehaha street. The structures upon defendants' lot consist of a dwelling house located in the northeasterly corner, next to the alley, facing Arcade street, and...