Fullmer v. Beck
| Decision Date | 18 May 1898 |
| Citation | 75 N.W. 366,105 Iowa 517 |
| Parties | JACOB FULLMER, Appellant, v. AUSTIN BECK |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Benton District Court.--G. W. BURNHAM, Judge.
ACTION at law to recover possession of certain real estate, and damages for its detention and use. At the close of the evidence, a verdict was returned for the defendant, by direction of the court, and judgment was rendered in his favor for costs. The plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Tom H Milner for appellant.
Struble & Stiger for appellee.
The plaintiff claims to be the absolute and unqualified owner of a forty-acre tract of land, which is described, and the defendant is the owner of an adjoining tract of forty acres. The controversy between the parties is in regard to the ownership of a strip of land two rods wide and eighty rods long, which is on the boundary line between the two tracts. The evidence tended strongly to show that the strip was a part of the original government subdivision of land now owned by the plaintiff; but the evidence also showed, without material conflict, that the strip has been used and occupied as a part of the tract now owned by the defendant for about forty years. We are required to determine whether the evidence so clearly shows that the defendant is the owner of the strip, by virtue of adverse possession under claim of title that the court was justified in directing a verdict for him. About forty years before this action was commenced, the tract now owned by the defendant was purchased by Levi Marsh. About the year 1858, he had the boundary line in question established by a private survey, built a fence on that line, and broke and occupied and claimed to own the land on his side up to that line. His right of possession and claim of ownership, so far as he knew, were never disputed. After owning the land about eight years, he sold it to Charles S. Fuller, who farmed it to the limit of the fence until the year 1882, when he sold it to the defendant. In 1869, Fuller planted a hedge fence as near the fence built by Marsh as it could be placed; and since that time, until a short time before this action was commenced, that hedge has been maintained and treated as the boundary line between the two tracts. A few years after Fuller bought the land as stated, one of his sons bought the land now owned by the plaintiff, and owned it until the year 1870. During that time he farmed his tract up to the fence, and his grantees have done the same. The defendant has occupied his land since he purchased it, and, when this action was commenced, had occupied the strip in controversy under a claim of ownership for about fourteen years, and his claim does not appear to have been disputed by any one until May, 1895, when the plaintiff caused a survey of the land to be made, and since that time he has claimed to own the strip. It is said that the defendant and his grantors did not claim to own anything not included in the government subdivision of land described in the conveyances to them; and it is quite probable that the boundary line in dispute was originally located by mistake. But the evidence does not show that the defendant and his grantors did not claim beyond the government boundary line. Although the evidence as to the claim under which the defendant's grantors held possession is not satisfactory yet it does show that they occupied to the line of the fence, and justifies the presumption that they so occupied adversely and under claim of ownership. The evidence on the part of the defendant is more explicit. He testifies that he had occupied the strip of land in dispute, and that he claimed to own to the hedge, for more than ten years prior to the commencement of this action. His occupation and exercise of dominion over the strip were continuous, open, visible, and notorious for more than ten years before they were disputed by any one. It is true that the deed under which he holds describes the land he claims as a government subdivision, and not by metes and bounds, and that in answer to the question, "You do not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Mills County
...to claim title to the division line, and thus, if necessary, acquire "title by prescription," it may ripen into title. Fullmer v. Beck, 105 Iowa 517, 75 N.W. 366; Doolittle v. Bailey, 85 Iowa 398, 52 N.W. Heinrichs v. Terrell, 65 Iowa 25, 21 N.W. 171. In other words, the possession of the s......
-
Miller v. Mills Cnty.
...to claim title to the division line, and thus, if necessary, acquire “title by prescription,” it may ripen into title. Fullmer v. Beck, 105 Iowa, 518, 75 N. W. 366;Doolittle v. Bailey, 85 Iowa, 398, 52 N. W. 337;Heinrichs v. Terrell, 65 Iowa, 25, 21 N. W. 171. In other words, the possession......
-
Olson v. Clark
...was the boundary between his land and that of defendant. See Kotze v. Sullivan, 210 Iowa 600, 603, 231 N.W. 339, and Fullmer v. Beck, 105 Iowa 517, 520, 75 N.W. 366. Six witnesses in addition to plaintiff testified to the existence of the fence for well over the statutory perior. They also ......
-
Fredricksen v. Bierent
...Iowa, 86, 99 N. W. 724,Laughlin v. Francis, 129 Iowa, 62, 105 N. W. 360,Hootman v. Hootman, 133 Iowa, 632, 111 N. W. 60,Fullmer v. Beck, 105 Iowa, 517, 75 N. W. 366,Keller v. Harrison, 139 Iowa, 394, 116 N. W. 327,Axmear v. Richards, 112 Iowa, 657, 84 N. W. 686,Klinkner v. Schmidt, 114 Iowa......