Glenn v. Jeffrey

• Decision Date: 05 September 1888
• Citation: 39 N.W. 160,75 Iowa 20
• Parties: GLENN ET AL. v. JEFFREY.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

75 Iowa 20

39 N.W. 160

GLENN ET AL.

v.JEFFREY.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

September 5, 1888.

Appeal from district court, Monona county; C. H. LEWIS, Judge.

Action by Robert Glenn and others against J. B. Jeffrey to recover possession of real estate. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal.John S. Monk, G. W. McMillan, and John E. Selleck, for appellants.

A purchaser of a government subdivision, represented by plat and fieldnotes of government survey as bordering on a navigable river, takes to high-water mark. The meander line of the surveyor is not a boundary line, and when it differs from the actual water-mark, the latter controls. Kraut v. Crawford, 18 Iowa, 549;Musser v. Hershey, 42 Iowa, 356;Ufford v. Wilkins, 33 Iowa, 110;Hedrick v. Eno, 42 Iowa, 411;Sanders v. Eldridge, 46 Iowa, 34;Schurmeier v. Railroad Co., 10 Minn. 82, (Gil. 63,) 7 Wall. 272;Railroad Co. v. Railroad Co., 26 Minn. 31, 1 N. W. Rep. 580;Middleton v. Pritchard, 3 Scam. 510;Trustees v. Haven, 5 Gilman, 548-554;Lovingston v. County of St. Clair, 64 Ill. 56, 23 Wall. 46; Piper v. Connelly, 108 Ill. 648;Wright v. Day, 33 Wis. 260;Jones v. Pettibone, 2 Wis. 308;Minto v. Delaney, 7 Or. 337; Ross v. Faust, 54 Ind. 471;McIver v. Walker, 9 Cranch, 173;Brown v. Huger, 21 How. 305;Lewen v. Smith, 7 Port. (Ala.) 428; Stafford v. King, 30 Tex. 270;Bolton v. Lann, 16 Tex. 111;Shelton v. Maupin, 16 Mo. 124.

P. Hubbard and S. H. Cochrane, for appellee.

Plaintiffs' title being based upon a swamp-land deed, cannot be extended to embrace unsurveyed land. Boynton v. Miller, 22 Iowa, 581. The meander line, being upon a bayou, is the true boundary. Lammers v. Nissen, 4 Neb. 245.

SEEVERS, C. J.

The court instructed the jury as follows: “The plat and field-notes introduced herein show that lot 3 was surveyed and platted and located upon the north side of certain water, which was at the time of the survey supposed to have been the Missouri river. It is shown by the Adkins survey, and other evidence in the case, that the lot 3 ran, not to the Missouri river, but to the waters of a certain bayou, and that beyond this bayou, and between it and the Missouri river, was the other lands, the land claimed by defendants. The evidence shows that the land between this bayou and the river was not surveyed. Under this evidence you are instructed that the plaintiff has failed to show title in himself to the land claimed by the defendant. So, though defendant may not have shown any title in himself, still you will sign and return the following verdict, to-wit.” The land in controversy is lot 3 in section 18, township 82, range 45, in Monona county, and the plaintiff introduced evidence showing title in himself from the government. The only controversy is whether the lot, as described, extended to the Missouri river.

The evidence warranted the court in giving the instruction it did. There was no controversy as to the facts. It is true that the government plat and field-notes described the meander line as being at the Missouri river, and therefore it is claimed that lot 3 extended to the river. In fact, however, instead of running the meander line along the river, it was run along a bayou some distance from the river. The land in question cannot be regarded as accretion, but existed as it now does when the survey was made. The court rightly directed the jury to find for the defendant. The land never was in fact surveyed by the...