Lavis v. Wilcox

• Citation: 116 Minn. 187,133 N.W. 563
• Parties: LAVIS v. WILCOX et al.
• Decision Date: 08 December 1911
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

116 Minn. 187

133 N.W. 563

LAVIS

v.WILCOX et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 8, 1911.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Horace D. Dickinson, Judge.

Action by Ivanilla Lavis against John F. Wilcox and others. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order denying a new trial, defendant Wilcox appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

The words ‘the north half,’ used in the conveyance of part of a platted block of land, mean the half of the block in area lying north of an east and west line drawn through the block, unless the context and surrounding facts require that these words be given a different meaning. Arthur M. Higgins, for appellant.

Edward T. Teitsworth, for respondent.

SIMPSON, J.

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 Cederstrand the north half of block 4.’ Cederstrand, 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 line-the tracts intended to be conveyed; and the defendant in his answer asked that the grantors in the deeds to the plaintiff and the defendant be made parties to the action, and that the deeds be reformed to describe the tracts intended to be conveyed. The case went to trial; the plaintiff and defendant being the only parties. The trial judge determined the boundary line as claimed by the plaintiff, and refused to...