Hall v. Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 June 1899
• Citation: 76 Minn. 401,79 N.W. 497
• Parties: HALL v. CONNECTICUT MUT. LIFE INS. CO. et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

76 Minn. 401

79 N.W. 497

HALL

v.CONNECTICUT MUT. LIFE INS. CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 1, 1899.

Appeal from district court, St. Louis county; William A. Cant, Judge.

Action by Samuel E. Hall against the Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company and others. Finding for plaintiff. From an order denying a new trial, defendant insurance company appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Held, by the chain of conveyances proved on the trial, the title to the land in controversy is in plaintiff.

2. Two blocks of land were platted with a street between them; nearly all (but not all) of one block up to the line of the street being in shoal water, part of the Bay of Superior. Thereafter the latter block was dredged out deep enough to float vessels, and the public acquired by prescription a right to use that block as a public slip. Held, the platted lots in the other block, fronting on the street, extended to the middle line of the street, and their boundaries were not extended across the street to the public slip by reason of the acquiring of the slip by the public.

3. Defendant claims title to the strips of land in question by reason of 15 years' continuous adverse possession in its grantors in connection with the adjoining land. The adjoining land was conveyed to defendant, but it never received a conveyance of said strips, and never was in possession of them. Held, it proved no title to them.

4. Held, the evidence warranted a finding that the land in controversy was unoccupied at the time of the commencement of the action.

5. Held, the evidence sufficiently identifies the land covered by a certain plat.

6. An objection that a certified copy of a will offered in evidence is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial is not sufficient to raise the point that the certificate of probate is not in proper form.

7. Held, certain maps and photographs of the locality were made competent evidence by witnesses who testified that they were correct representations of the place.

8. Held, certain line in a government survey was sufficiently identified. S. T. & Wm. Harrison and Henry F. Greene (Warner, Richardson & Lawrence, of counsel), for appellant.

Wm. C. White, for respondent.

CANTY, J.

This is an action to determine adverse claims. On the trial the court found for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial the defendant insurance company appeals.

So far as here material, Cowell's addition to Duluth consisted of two blocks, as shown by the annexed plat:

IMAGE

The addition is on a narrow neck of land bounded on the east by Lake Superior and on the west by the Bay of Superior. The plat extended some distance over into the shoal water in the bay. The blocks in the addition are not numbered, lettered, or otherwise designated; but the even-numbered lots are in the east half of each block, and the odd numbered lots are in the west half, and this furnishes a means of identification. Many years ago the whole of the block west of Minnesota avenue was dredged out up to the west line of the avenue, in constructing a slip. This slip extends several blocks north from the navigable water in the bay south of the dock line shown on the map, and is used by the public in floating lake vessels in and out through it. Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that his is the owner of lots 8, 14, 16, and 18, fronting on Minnesota avenue, and the west half of the street in front thereof, and prayed judgment quieting his title to the same, but the court found that the public had acquired a prescriptive right to maintain said slip over said lots, and had an easement for that purpose in all of the same. The court further found that Minnesota avenue had never been accepted by the public, or opened for public travel, but had been abandoned by the public; that plaintiff is the owner of the west half of the avenue in front of said lots, and is entitled to judgment adjudging that defendants have no right, interest, lien, or claim in or to the same. On this appeal neither party questions the correctness of the decision so far as it holds that the street has been abandoned by the public, but the controversy here is as to whether plaintiff or appellant is the owner of the west half of the street in front of said lots. The appellant is the owner of lots 7, 13, 15, and 17 on the east side of Minnesota avenue in the other block. These lots are directly across the avenue from the lots so claimed by plaintiff. Appellant claims title to said parts of the west half of the avenue on three grounds: (1) That, by the chain of recorded conveyances, it, and not plaintiff, has the title thereto; (2) that by reason of the fact that the whole of the west block, up to the west line of the avenue, has become a public slip or water highway, appellant's lots extend clear across the avenue, and abut on the public water, so as to include said parts of the west half of the avenue; and (3) that appellant has acquired a title to said parts of the avenue by reason of 15 years' adverse possession in appellant and its grantors.

1. We are of the opinion that, by the chain of conveyances proved on the trial, plaintiff, and not appellant, has the title to said parts of the west half of the avenue. The common grantees under whom both parties claim are Gilman, Luce, and Austrian, who owned seven-eighths and the heirs of Mower, who owned one-eighth, of all of said lots on both sides of the avenue. One Van Brunt had acquired tax titles to said lots 7, 13, 15, and 17; and Gilman, Luce, and Austrian brought an action against him to quiet their title to these lots. It was held that Van Brunt's tax titles were void on their face. See Gilman v. Van Brunt, 29 Minn. 271, 13 N. W. 125. On the faith of his tax titles, Van Brunt had made improvements on these lots, and had also built a dock on said parts of the west half of the avenue fronting on said slip, so as to give him access to the slip, and the lake vessels landed at his dock. In 1885, after his tax titles were held void as aforesaid, he and one Gardner, as joint grantees, procured conveyances from Gilman, Luce, and Austrian of their seven-eighths interest in land described in the deeds as follows: ‘Lots 1, 3, 5, 7, 13, 14, 15, and 17 on Minnesota avenue, and lots 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 16 on Lake avenue; being what is known as ‘Cowell's Addition to Duluth,’ and being an undivided 7/8 interest of that part of lot 4, section 27, * * * which lies west of said Lake avenue, as the same is now used and traveled, and north of Buchanan street, on Minnesota Point.' The north...