Larsen v. Onesite

• Decision Date: 29 November 1899
• Citation: 59 P. 234,21 Utah 38
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: OLE LARSEN, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. CHARLES ONESITE, RESPONDENT

59 P. 234

21 Utah 38

OLE LARSEN, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. CHARLES ONESITE, RESPONDENT

Supreme Court of Utah

November 29, 1899

Petition for rehearing denied January 26, 1900.

Appeal from Third District Court, Salt Lake County, Hon. Ogden Hiles, Judge.

Action in ejectment for a certain specific strip of land. Answer and cross-complaint by defendant setting up adverse possession. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appealed.

Affirmed.

Messrs Goodwin & Van Pelt, for appellants.

Payment of taxes on a tract of land by its lot and block description as in this case, only pays the taxes on the lot according to its true boundaries when ascertained, and is not a compliance with the statute regulating adverse claims requiring payment of the taxes upon the tract claimed. Jones Real Property, Secs. 354-56; McDonald v. Drew, 32 P. (Cal.), 173.

If the fence was established for convenience, and the parties have continued to claim according to the true line, neither acquired a title or even a right of possession against the other by reason of the fence. Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 1st ed., Vol. 1, p. 249; Burrill v. Burrill, 11 Mass. 294; White v. Ward, 14 S.E. 22 (W. Va.); Switzgable v. Worseldine, 15 P. 144 (Utah).

Occupancy to a fence; authorities reviewed. Book 21, L. C. P. Co. 829, note.

A. V. Taylor, Esq., for respondent.

Silent acquiescence of fence 16 years establishes it as true line. Burns v. Fitch, 76 Cal. 395; 75 Cal. 610; 66 Cal. 223; Shields v. Roberts, 64 Ga. 370.

Two adjacent owners establishing a division line and claim, and occupying up to division line for statutory period, such line stands. Brown v. Leete, 6 Sawy. (U.S.), 322; Sherman v. Kane, 87 N.Y. 57 et seq.; Brown v. Anderson, 90 Ind. 94; Grim v. Murphy, 110 Ill. 271; Schneider v. Botsch, 90 Ill. 577; Sherman v. Kane, 86 N.Y. 57; Halloran v. Halloran, 149 Mass. 298; Yitzer v. Thoman, 17 Ohio 130.

It was a boundary consented to by all for nineteen years and more, and they are estopped from claiming any other. Switzgable v. Worseldine, 5 Utah 315; Columbit v. Pacheco, 48 Cal. 395; Greene v. Smith, 52 Vt. 266.

"Monuments and facts prevail over maps and courses."

MINER, J. BARTCH, C. J., and BASKIN, J., concur.

OPINION

MINER, J.

This action in ejectment was commenced in April, 1896. The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs have been the owners and in possession of lot 1, block 17, Five Acre Plat "A" Big Field Survey, since March 5th, 1879, and that defendant has been the owner and in possession of lot 20, in the same block, since July 7, 1884.

Plaintiffs claim that the defendant wrongfully entered upon and withheld from plaintiffs a strip of land on the north line of said lot 1, in the northeast corner thereof, running to the east line of the Jordan canal right of way, being about four feet wide and seventy feet long. Lot 20 adjoins lot 1 on the north.

The answer and cross-complaint denies that said strip is a part of lot 1, and alleges that not only said strip, but an additional four feet, was a part of lot 20. The cross-complaint also alleges continuous adverse possession of the strip for ten years.

Among other facts, the court found that the defendant and his predecessors in title, have been in the actual and continuous possession of the land in dispute for more than twenty-five years past, and during that period has occupied, cultivated, and used the same adversely to all the world, and to the plaintiffs; that such occupation was with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs; that the land is a part of lot 20, and that defendant is the owner and entitled to the possession of the same, and thereafter rendered judgment in favor of the defendant.

The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment, and claim that the findings of fact and decision of the court were not supported by the evidence; that the court erred in rejecting testimony, and because of newly discovered evidence a new trial should have been granted.

This contention arose over a dispute as to the location of the north line of lot 1, and the questions arising under the allegation of the answer and proof wherein it is claimed that the appellants have been in the peaceable and continuous possession of the land for twenty-five years.

It appears from the testimony that for upwards of twenty years prior to the trial, while a Mr. Young owned lot 20, a ditch had been built along the north line of lot 1 and the south line of lot 20, and a brush fence had been constructed along the ditch; that Young occupied and used the land north of the fence and ditch, and the owners of lot 1 occupied and used up to the south line, and no dispute arose concerning the line. About eleven or twelve years prior to the trial, plaintiff constructed a board fence along the ditch in about the same place where the old fence had stood, without objection, and by the agreement of the defendant, and thereafter both parties occupied and used the land to the ditch and fence, and while the exact line was not known, this was treated as the line by the parties until two years prior to the trial, at which time plaintiffs procured a survey to be made and the line was located by the surveyor about four feet north of the old fence. Plaintiffs then tore down the old fence, and erected one at the point selected by the surveyor. Thereafter defendant tore down the last fence so erected, and replaced it by one on the old line where the old fence and ditch were located.

A surveyor called by the defendant located the north line of lot 1 just south of the old fence and ditch. Testimony was offered by the plaintiffs tending to contradict the existence of the ditch or the brush fence. It also appears that if the old fence formed the boundary line between the lots each party would still retain their full lot.

Plaintiff's wife testified, among other things, that when Mr. Young lived on lot 20, many years prior, there was a ditch running down between the two pieces of land, which Young used for watering the land, and that it was the dividing...