Empie v. Shortess
| Decision Date | 10 December 1940 |
| Docket Number | 45166. |
| Citation | 295 N.W. 120 |
| Parties | EMPIE v. SHORTESS et al. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Marshall County; B. O. Tankersley Judge.
" Not to be reported in State Reports."
Suit in equity for injunction and to quiet title. From a decree for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Boardman & Cartwright, of Marshalltown, for appellants.
F. E Northup, of Marshalltown, for appellee.
Lots 1, 2, and 3, of block 4, Jerome's addition to the town of Marshall, Marshall County, Iowa, are 180 feet north and south, and lots 1 and 2 are each 60 feet in width, east and west. Lot 1 is the east lot, the next west is lot 2, and lot 3, 50 feet in width, lies immediately west of lot 2. Plaintiff is the owner of the west 40 feet of lot 2 and the east 20 feet of lot 3. Defendants are the owners of the north 78 feet of lot 1 and the north 78 feet of the east 20 feet of lot 2.
The controversy between the parties is over the line forming the west boundary of defendants' tract and the east boundary of plaintiff's tract-that is, the west line of the east 20 feet of lot 2 and the east line of the west 40 feet of said lot 2. The block is bounded on the north by Main street and on the east by Sixth street. Across the north end of all the lots there is a driveway, long in existence, 8 feet in width. Plaintiff acquired title in 1928, and she and her predecessors have been in possession for many years, her immediate grantor having purchased the property in 1914. Defendants acquired their property in July, 1937. For six years a garage built on the property now belonging to defendants has projected upon the land claimed by plaintiff, for an estimated distance of 4 feet to the west of the line claimed by her. Plaintiff alleges that defendants are now about to permanently improve and rebuild the garage upon plaintiff's 4 feet of land, and that the defendants threaten to close the 8-foot driveway, and plaintiff avers that she is entitled to have the lot line permanently established and her title quieted to the tract of land, and asks that the defendants be enjoined from interfering with her easement and from building, completing, or using that part of the garage on plaintiff's land. Defendants' answer, in effect, is a general denial. They aver that the west portion of the garage referred to is located on the westerly boundary line of their premises and claim that the westerly end of the garage building has been recognized as the west boundary line of their premises.
Sixth street, to the east of lot 1, is 60 feet wide, as shown by the plat of the addition. A considerable amount of the testimony offered by plaintiff consisted of...
To continue reading
Request your trial