Hunter v. Eichel

• Decision Date: 20 February 1885
• Docket Number: 11,074
• Citation: 100 Ind. 463
• Parties: Hunter et al. v. Eichel et al
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

100 Ind. 463

Hunter et al. v. Eichel et al

No. 11,074

Supreme Court of Indiana

February 20, 1885

From the Vanderburgh Circuit Court.

C Denby, D. B. Kumler and R. A. Hill, for appellants.

A Gilchrist, C. H. Butterfield, R. D. Richardson and J. T Walker, for appellees.

OPINION

Best C.

The appellee Laura Eichel brought this action against the appellants to quiet her title to a certain parcel of ground described as lot seven (7), in Lilleston and Larabee's addition to the city of Evansville.

Issues were formed, a trial had, finding made and judgment rendered for the appellee. A motion for a new trial, on the ground that the finding was not sustained by the evidence, and that the court improperly excluded certain testimony, was overruled, and this ruling is assigned as error.

On the 25th day of April, 1842, Samuel G. Lilleston, Huntington Larabee and Willard Carpenter owned about an acre of land in a square form immediately north and abutting upon the north terminus of Main street, in the city of Evansville. This land was divided by the Princeton road which commenced at the north terminus of Main street, distant from the southwest corner of said land about eighty feet, and runs in a northeast direction, its course being nineteen and one-half degrees east of north. The land on the west side of this road was platted into fourteen lots, numbered from one to fourteen inclusive, beginning at the north, and this division was designated as Lilleston and Larabee's addition to the city of Evansville. The north and south lines of these lots, as they appear upon the plat, are at right angles with the road, and the east end of the north line of lot fourteen is at the south line of said land. The east end of this lot, as thus marked, has no frontage, but simply forms a point on the road. The width of the rear end of this lot is twenty-three feet three inches and the north line is eighty three feet and eight inches in length. The south line of lot one forms an acute angle with the north line of said land, and the front of said lot is forty-six feet and six inches in width. The plat contains this explanatory statement: "All the lots except No. 1 are twenty-five feet front."

The appellee has an undisputed title to lot seven (7), and the appellant Robert H. Hunter a like title to lot eight (8). The real dispute is whether the ground in controversy is lot seven or lot eight, and this turns upon the question whether lot fourteen has a frontage of twenty-five feet upon the Princeton road. If it has, all the other lots except lot one are twenty-five feet north of where they appear to be, and the lot marked seven is really lot eight. If lot fourteen has no frontage upon the Princeton road, the lot in dispute is lot seven and belongs to the appellee.

The solution of this question depends upon...