Friday v. Henah
| Citation | 85 N.W. 768,113 Iowa 425 |
| Parties | FRIDAY v. HENAH. |
| Decision Date | 11 April 1901 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Keokuk county; Ben McCoy, Judge.
Suit in equity to enjoin the obstruction of a private right of way claimed by plaintiff over defendant's land. The trial court granted the relief asked, and defendant appeals. Reversed.C. H. Mackey, for appellant.
D. W. Hamilton, for appellee.
Plaintiff, as the grantee of one Myerdick, claims a private right of way over defendant's land. Prior to the year 1870 Myerdick purchased the S. W. 1/4 of a section of land in Keokuk county, and about the same time defendant bought the S. 1/2 of the N. W. 1/4 of the same section. One Misel owned the N. E. 1/4 and also the N. W. 1/4 of the S. E. 1/4 of the section, and one Sherman owned the N. 1/2 of the N. W. 1/4. There were then, and are now, public highways on the north, south, and east sides of the section. When defendant purchased his first 80-acre tract, he had no outlet to any of these highways; and shortly thereafter he purchased of Misel a strip two rods wide off the N. W. 1/4 of the N. E. 1/4, and two rods out of the N. W. corner of the S. W. 1/4 of N. E. 1/4 of the section for a road. This secured him an outlet from his dwelling, which stood near the center of his farm, to the highway at the north line of the section. At this time the N. 1/2 of the N. E. 1/4 of the section was timber land and unfenced; and, instead of following the strip purchased of Misel, he traveled in a northeasterly direction across Misel's land to the highway. In the year 1876 defendant purchased of Misel the whole N. E. 1/4 of the section, and afterwards fenced it, putting in a gate at the north end of the strip he had purchased for a road. Afterwards he purchased more land, and is now the owner of the N. 1/2 of the section, except the strip owned by plaintiff. About 17 years ago he built a new house near the northeast corner of the section, and near the public highway on the north and east sides of his land. In the year 1873 Myerdick, who is plaintiff's grantor, purchased of Misel a strip for a road off the west side of the S. W. 1/4 of the N. E. 1/4 of the section, the north end of which adjoins the south end of the strip first purchased by defendant. He had no outlet to the highway, however, save as he used the highway previously purchased by defendant. There is a gate at the south end of the strip, that had been maintained by plaintiff and his grantor. For many years defendant has maintained a fence on the west side of the strip purchased by plaintiff's grantor, and for three or four years has had a fence running from the north end of the strip to the east side of his farm. Near the junction of the two strips defendant has recently erected a gate in this east and west fence, which gate is the obstruction complained of as we understand it.
From this statement it will be seen that, if conditions remain as they are, plaintiff is...
To continue reading
Request your trial