Kasner v. Reynolds, 35572

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
Writing for the CourtO'NEAL; HALLEY
Citation1954 OK 56,268 P.2d 864
PartiesKASNER et al. v. REYNOLDS.
Docket NumberNo. 35572,35572
Decision Date16 February 1954

Page 864

268 P.2d 864
1954 OK 56
KASNER et al.
v.
REYNOLDS.
No. 35572.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Feb. 16, 1954.
Rehearing Denied March 2 and April 6, 1954.
Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where the record as here discloses that the encroachment was in good faith, upon the assumption defendants' building and improvements were constructed in conformity with survey made by a licensed civil engineer, employed by defendants to survey and delineate the boundary lines of defendants and plaintiff's lots, this court will consider the circumstances, so that it shall not act oppressively.

2. Where defendants' encroachment is unintentional and slight, and plaintiff's use not substantially affected, and plaintiff's damage small and fairly compensable, while the cost of removal is so great as to cause great hardship or otherwise make its removal unconscionable, mandatory injunction may be properly denied and plaintiff relegated to compensation in damages.

Arnold T. Fleig, Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.

Lee G. Gill, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

O'NEAL, Justice.

From the judgment granting Joanna Reynolds a mandatory injunction the defendants, M. Kasner and Irene Kasner, appeal.

The parties will be referred to herein as they appeared in the trial court.

Page 865

The facts are not in substantial dispute. The parties entered into a Stipulation which discloses that the plaintiff is the owner of Lot 3 and the west 11 1/3 feet of lot 4, in Block 1, in Knott & Gillespie's Addition to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; that the defendants are the owners of the north 40 feet of lots 1 and 2 in block 1, in said addition, and that each of said lots are twenty-five feet in width; that on the 1st day of November, 1947, defendants erected a stone building on the north forty feet of lots 1 and 2. The building included an outside stairway and a cement walk running along the east side of the building.

The issues of fact between the parties are whether the building and appurtenances thereto are located solely on defendants' lots or whether they are located in part upon the plaintiff's lot 3. The further question posed was, if the court found defendants' building and appurtenances encroached upon the plaintiff's lot, was she entitled to injunctive relief, and to a decree quieting title to her property, and also a judgment for the fair cash market value of the use of plaintiff's lot by defendants, by reason of the encroachments thereon.

In addition to the pre-trial stipulation, oral evidence was introduced to which we shall advert, infra.

The trial court made a general finding in favor of the plaintiff and rendered a judgment for mandatory injunction commanding the defendant to remove the building from plaintiff's lot, and a further judgment in the nature of the rental value of the strip of land wrongfully occupied, in the sum of $235.

Defendants' motion for a new trial was overruled and they appeal, and for grounds of reversal state:

'(1) The trial court deprived defendant of its day in court by erroneously holding that a judicial determination of boundaries was precluded by reason of the proceedings before the county surveyor, etc.

'(2) Regardless of the asserted finality of the county surveyor's finding respecting boundaries, a new and different boundary could be established by agreement, acquiescence, estoppel or prescription, and the court erred in failing and refusing to consider the evidence offered, or any evidence in support of these defenses.

'(3) In any event, the plaintiff was not entitled to the extraordinary relief of a mandatory injunction.'

After the submission of the case the trial court indicated an intention to find the issues generally in favor of the plaintiff, but at the same time continued the case for final judgment. Upon the date for the entry of a final judgment, defendants requested leave to file an amended answer to which we shall refer, infra.

The court permitted the filing of the amended answer with the proviso that it would be considered solely on the question of whether the plaintiff was entitled to a mandatory injunction. Additional evidence was thereafter introduced in part in support of defendants' proposed amended answer.

The original answer of the defendants was in the nature of a general denial and an allegation that they were the owners of the north forty feet of lots 1 and 2 in said addition, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Russell v. Williams, No. 89569
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • April 28, 1998
    ...building would be $45,000-$60,000 while diminished value to encroachee's lot was $3,180, no removal ordered); Kasner v. Reynolds, 1954 OK 56, 268 P.2d 864 (building which encroached about 20 inches, along with sidewalk which encroached 4.75 feet would not be removed by mandatory injunction ......
  • CHILCUTT DIRECT Mktg. INC. v. A CARROLL Corp., No. 106
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • May 7, 2010
    ...a matter for the trial court's discretion and depends upon a consideration of all the equities between the parties. Kasner v. Reynolds, 1954 OK 56, ¶ 25, 268 P.2d 864, 867. Similarly, a trial court's decision on a new trial motion is a matter reviewed for abuse of discretion, and will not b......
  • Chilcutt Direct Mktg. Inc v. A Carroll Corp., No. 106961
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • May 7, 2010
    ...a matter for the trial court's discretion and depends upon a consideration of all the equities between the parties. Kasner v. Reynolds, 1954 OK 56, 25, 268 P.2d 864, 867. Similarly, a trial court's decision on a new trial motion is a matter reviewed for abuse of discretion, and will not be ......
  • Kratz v. Kratz, No. 77602
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • June 20, 1995
    ...Co., 196 Okl. 362, 165 P.2d 829, 831 (1946). 16 Sinclair Oil & Gas Co. v. Bishop, Okl., 441 P.2d 436, 439 (1967); Kasner v. Reynolds, 268 P.2d 864, 867 17 Uptegraft, supra note 2 at 685. 18 Markham v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 464 F.2d 703, 705 (10th Cir.1972); Karlson v. C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Russell v. Williams, No. 89569
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • April 28, 1998
    ...building would be $45,000-$60,000 while diminished value to encroachee's lot was $3,180, no removal ordered); Kasner v. Reynolds, 1954 OK 56, 268 P.2d 864 (building which encroached about 20 inches, along with sidewalk which encroached 4.75 feet would not be removed by mandatory injunction ......
  • CHILCUTT DIRECT Mktg. INC. v. A CARROLL Corp., No. 106
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • May 7, 2010
    ...a matter for the trial court's discretion and depends upon a consideration of all the equities between the parties. Kasner v. Reynolds, 1954 OK 56, ¶ 25, 268 P.2d 864, 867. Similarly, a trial court's decision on a new trial motion is a matter reviewed for abuse of discretion, and will not b......
  • Chilcutt Direct Mktg. Inc v. A Carroll Corp., No. 106961
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • May 7, 2010
    ...a matter for the trial court's discretion and depends upon a consideration of all the equities between the parties. Kasner v. Reynolds, 1954 OK 56, 25, 268 P.2d 864, 867. Similarly, a trial court's decision on a new trial motion is a matter reviewed for abuse of discretion, and will not be ......
  • Kratz v. Kratz, No. 77602
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • June 20, 1995
    ...Co., 196 Okl. 362, 165 P.2d 829, 831 (1946). 16 Sinclair Oil & Gas Co. v. Bishop, Okl., 441 P.2d 436, 439 (1967); Kasner v. Reynolds, 268 P.2d 864, 867 17 Uptegraft, supra note 2 at 685. 18 Markham v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 464 F.2d 703, 705 (10th Cir.1972); Karlson v. C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT