Hill v. Meister
| Decision Date | 08 July 1971 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 55336 |
| Citation | 133 Ill.App.2d 678,273 N.E.2d 643 |
| Parties | James E. HILL and Arlene P. Hill, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Kurt E. MEISTER et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Harry G. Fins, Chicago, for defendants-appellants.
Schuyler, Stough & Morris, Richard A. Cowen, Chicago, for plaintiffs-appellees.
The defendants appeal from a decree which ordered them to remove encroachments from the plaintiffs' property.
The plaintiffs, James and Arlene Hill, and the defendants, Kurt and Lillian Meister, are owners of adjoining residential lots in the Village of Prospect Heights. The lots front on the east side of Wildwood Drive, a north to south street, and are irregularly shaped. The southerly lot, owned by the Hills, is a corner lot bordered on the south by Stonegate Drive. It measures 242.91 feet on the south, 129.3 5/8 feet on the west along Wildwood, 227 feet on the north and 80.08 feet on the east. The northerly lot, owned by the Meisters, measures 227 feet on the south (the common boundary with the Hills), 161 feet on the west along Wildwood, 219.25 feet on the north and 52.75 feet on the east.
In 1968, the Meisters built a frame shed and a brick garden wall, thirty feet in length, along the southerly edge of their lot. In May 1969, the Hills noticed that these structures encroached on their property and they called this to the attention of the Meisters. Both parties referred to their surveys. Hills' (made in 1964) indicated that the structures were over the property line; Meisters' (made in 1966) indicated that they were not. The Meisters suggested that the Hills sell or lease the footage necessary to remove the alleged trespass. The Hills refused but offered to help move the offending structures. The Meisters declined the offer and the parties ordered their properties re-surveyed. After receiving their new survey the Hills renewed their demands that the structures be removed and the Meisters told them to go to court.
Thereafter, the Meisters constructed a wooden fence farther to the south and the Hills filed this action for a mandatory injunction to compel the removal of the shed, wall and fence.
In their pleadings and at the hearing, the Meisters denied that there were encroachments. The trial court found that there were and ordered them removed. On appeal, the Meisters contend that: the judgment should be reversed because they did not receive a fair trial; the court erred in matters of evidence, and the issuance of a mandatory injunction was improper in that the encroachments, if any, were not intentional.
At the hearing the Hills presented the testimony of the surveyor who made the 1969 survey. He testified that he had surveyed the same lot in 1961 in connection with a sale to a prior owner. The procedure for ascertaining the correct location of a lot, he testified, was to check for the iron stakes or rods and also to check the original plat of the subdivision. In 1961 he had located the four corner stakes and a fifth iron stake midway along the southerly line of the property. He had re-surveyed the lot in 1964 to spot the house--which had been constructed on the lot after 1961--and at that time he again found all the stakes. In July 1969, when he surveyed the property to locate possible encroachments, the stake at the northwest corner of the Hills' lot was gone. However, from his 1961 field notes and the location of the stakes in 1961 and 1964, he was able to restake the property to match the prior surveys. He did not recheck the subdivision plat because he had done so previously. He located the frame shed and brick wall with relation to the Hills' lot, and found they were over Hills' property line. The survey of 1969, prepared by him and introduced in the Hills' behalf without objection, showed that the Meister structures encroached on Hills' property.
Two surveyors testified for the Meisters that their 1969 surveys were correct and showed no encroachments. One of the surveyors said he found some of the iron stakes but they were not in the right place so he put in new ones at the east and west ends of the disputed property line. This surveyor had assisted in surveying the subdivision in 1956 and had worked on the original plat of both lots when these were laid out. He admitted there were errors in his 1969 survey. Three mistakes were developed: the distance from the southeast corner of the Meister house to their south lot line was two feet, seven and one-half inches shorter than shown in his survey; the distance from the southwest corner of the house to the south property line was three feet, four and one-quarter inches shorter than shown in his survey, and the measurement of the common property line between the Hills and Meisters was 227 feet rather than 230 feet, 8 inches, indicated on his survey. At the end of the trial the judge commented that he did not give the testimony of this witness serious consideration because of its errors.
The second Meister surveyor testified that he surveyed the lots of both parties and all the rest of the lots in the block. He stated that it was impossible to make an accurate survey of a single lot without checking all lots and corners relating to it. He said he found iron stakes but they appeared to be new and were not at the true corners of Hills' lot. He further testified that the angle for the northeast corner of the Hills' lot shown in the recorded plat was 108 degrees and 24 minutes while his own survey showed only 105 degrees and 28 minutes. He acknowledged that if the recorded angle were correct the northerly line of Hills' lot would angle farther to the north and, in that event, the shed, wall and fence would encroach upon their property. He justified his measurements by saying the recorded plat was in error.
A third survey had been prepared for the Meisters and was offered in evidence. The surveyor was not in court and the survey was not admitted.
As evidence of the court's prejudicial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. 1945 North 31ST Street, Decatur
...Illinois State Trust Co. v. Southern Illinois National Bank, 29 Ill.App.3d 1, 11, 329 N.E.2d 805 (1975) (same); Hill v. Meister, 133 Ill. App.2d 678, 682, 273 N.E.2d 643 (1971) (same). "No duty rests upon the court to rule out evidence to which there might be some objection; making appropri......
-
Essig v. Advocate Bromenn Med. Ctr.
...Decatur, Macon County, Illinois, 217 Ill.2d 481, 503, 299 Ill.Dec. 196, 841 N.E.2d 928, 941 (2005) (quoting Hill v. Meister, 133 Ill.App.2d 678, 682, 273 N.E.2d 643, 646 (1971) ). This principle allows parties and courts of review to consider the legal issues without speculating as to the e......
-
Kaybill Corp., Inc. v. Cherne
...demeanor of the witnesses and has determined the testimony of the Ellises to be more credible than that of Cherne. (Hill v. Meister (1971), 133 Ill.App.2d 678, 273 N.E.2d 643.) We cannot say that the findings of the trial court as to the reasonable increase of rental are palpably contrary t......
-
Casson v. Nash
...allowed them into evidence. A court is not required to exclude objectionable evidence absent an objection. (Hill v. Meister (1971), 133 Ill.App.2d 678, 682, 273 N.E.2d 643; People v. Williams (1963), 28 Ill.2d 114, 116, 190 N.E.2d 809; People v. Henry (1954), 3 Ill.2d 609, 614, 122 N.E.2d 1......