In re Application of Stees
| Decision Date | 09 May 1919 |
| Docket Number | 21,180 |
| Citation | 172 N.W. 219,142 Minn. 340 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION OF JOHN A. STEES TO REGISTER TITLE, ETC.; v. WILLIS F. REINHARDT AND OTHERS; CITY OF ST. PAUL, APPELLANT JOHN A. STEES COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Application to the district court for Ramsey county by John A. Stees to register title to certain city lots. The city of St. Paul in its amended answer denied that the applicant had any right or title to any part of East Seventh street in that city, and alleged that it had an easement for public travel over all that part of the premises described in the application between the exterior walls of the building and the platted line of the street, and that it had been in possession thereof for more than 15 years. The matter was heard by Hanft, J., who made findings and found that the original applicant was the owner of an estate in fee simple of the property; that during the pendency of the proceeding John A. Stees and his wife conveyed the property to John A Stees Company, which duly became a party to the proceedings and that this company was the owner of the premises. From an order denying its motion for amended findings or for a new trial, the city of St. Paul appealed. Affirmed.
Width of sidewalk -- easement inside of platted lot line -- user.
The owner of a platted city block, surrounded by streets duly platted and dedicated to public use, set the business buildings erected thereon back five feet from the lot line, in order to afford a space for the display of goods. The streets were curbed eight feet from the lot line, and the public authorities ordered eight foot sidewalks laid. The owner laid these walks and extended them five feet further to the front walls of the business buildings. The city claims an easement for public travel in the five feet inside the lot lines. It is held:
(1) The evidence sustains the findings, to the effect that there was no intent to dedicate an easement beyond the lot line, and that the acts and conduct of the owner were not such as to require the inference of an intent to dedicate.
(2) The findings are also sustained to the effect that there was no acceptance of an easement for public travel beyond that granted by the plat.
(3) Public easement to the strip in question cannot be claimed by statutory user, for that requires both travel over and work upon the land to be acquired for six years.
(4) The evidence does not make a case of an easement by prescription, for the owner always asserted the right to use and did use the strip in dispute.
(5) The evidence does not show that the applicant is estopped from denying the existence of the easement claimed.
O. H. O'Neill and John A. Burns, for appellant.
Harold Harris, for respondent.
In 1870, John A. Stees and three other persons bought the block bounded by East Seventh, Eighth, Jackson and Sibley streets, St. Paul. The block was platted into lots, and the streets mentioned had long prior thereto been by plat dedicated to public use. At that time no building for business purposes existed on the block. Stees and his associates at once erected a brick building on the corner of Jackson and East Seventh streets, and purposely placed the outside walls five feet inside the line separating the lots from the streets. All buildings subsequently erected in the block fronting on the streets last mentioned were similarly set back five feet from the street line. At the time of filing of the application in this proceeding to register the title of the property, being the westerly 136 feet of the block, John A. Stees had acquired the interest of his associates therein, but before the trial the ownership had passed into the John A. Stees Company, a corporation. The city was made a party, and set up an easement for public travel in and to the five-foot strip between the outer walls of the buildings fronting on Jackson street and on East Seventh street and the platted line dividing the lots from said streets, and that it had acquired this easement by user and by adverse possession. The findings were against the city and it appeals.
The findings which are decisive of the city's claim may be stated, in a condensed form, thus: Jackson street and East Seventh street were platted and dedicated to public use by the original owners of the land in question and by the owners of contiguous lands more than 48 years ago, and have since been extensively traveled; that the travel and public use of said streets are confined to the limits of said streets as fixed by the plat of dedication; that the outer walls of the areas in front of the buildings are on the property line, but that the buildings themselves in the block in question were set back five feet, for the purpose of display of wares by tenants of the stores and were so used for years, a custom then universal among shopkeepers; in some instances more or less permanent structures having been erected for this purpose, gratings gave access to light and trap-doors to the areaway used by tenants; on Jackson street on this strip a stairway led into the basement till closed to accommodate a tenant, later, during the pendency of this proceeding, it was opened against the wishes of the city; the sidewalks ordered constructed by the city since 1870 have been eight feet wide the width between the lot lines and the curb, but the owner or owners of the property extended this walk up to the buildings; for more than 20 years the owners have had on the sidewalk a painted red line 2 1/2 inches wide, marking the line dividing the streets from the lots, or the so-called property line; that the owners have continuously paid taxes and assessments on the whole lots, with no deduction for the five feet now in dispute; that the city never held adverse possession of the strip, nor did any work or improvement thereon, nor exercised any right, control or dominion over the same; that the owners of the lots never expressly or impliedly dedicated or intended to dedicate any part of said strip to public use, nor did anything to induce...
To continue reading
Request your trial