Lavis v. Wilcox
| Decision Date | 08 December 1911 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 17,274 - (130).,s. 17,274 - (130). |
| Parties | IVANILLA LAVIS v. JOHN F. WILCOX.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to determine a boundary line. The answer of defendant Wilcox prayed for the reformation of the deed from George Summers to defendant and of the deed from Ida G. Cedarstrand to plaintiff, and that, when reformed, the boundary be determined. Ida G. Cedarstrand, George Cedarstrand and another were made parties to the action and filed answers to the cross bill of defendant Wilcox. The case was tried before Dickinson, J., who made findings and as conclusions of law found that plaintiff was entitled to judgment, that she was the owner of one-half of the total area of block four, lying north of an east and west line extending through and across said block, and that the boundary line between the land of plaintiff and that of defendant Wilcox in said block four was determined and established as the direct east and west line across said block, which will divide the total area of said block in two equal parts, according to the plat of the addition on file and of record in the office of the register of deeds in and for said county. From the judgment entered pursuant to the findings, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Arthur M. Higgins, for appellant.
Edward T. Teitsworth, for respondent.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment. The action was brought to determine the boundary line between land of the plaintiff and land of the defendant. One Summers owned block 4 in Mann's addition to Birch Bluff, in Hennepin county, and by deeds bearing the same date conveyed to the defendant "the south half of block 4" and to one Cedarstrand "the north half of block 4." Cedarstrand, in turn, conveyed to the plaintiff by the same description. Block 4, so conveyed, contains about five acres. The east boundary line of the block is a section line, the south boundary line extends at right angles from the east line, and the west boundary line is parallel with the east boundary line, but is considerably shorter. The northerly boundary line, therefore, extends from the northeast corner of the block southwesterly to the west boundary line.
The plaintiff claimed under her deed the half in area of the block lying north of an east and west line through the block. The defendant claimed, first, that under his deed as drawn he took the part of the block lying south of a line bisecting the east and west boundary lines — that is, south of a line extending from the middle point of the east boundary line to the middle point of the west boundary line; second, that through mistake and inadvertence the tracts of land conveyed by the deeds were described as the north and south halves of the block, instead of the tracts north and south of a line extending from the middle point of the east boundary line to the middle point of the west boundary...
To continue reading
Request your trial