Matson v. Poncin

• Citation: 126 N.W. 1103
• Parties: MATSON v. PONCIN ET AL.
• Decision Date: 08 July 1910
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

126 N.W. 1103

MATSON

v.PONCIN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

July 8, 1910.

Appeal from District Court, Wright County; Chas. E. Albrook, Judge.

“Not to be Officially Reported.”

Appeal from a decree establishing certain corners and lines. Affirmed.J. H. Scales, for appellant.

Nagle & Nagle, Birdsall & Birdsall, Peterson & Knapp, and J. W. Lee, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, as owner of the W. 1/2 S. W. 1/4 of section 1, alleged the ownership by defendants of lands along the lines between sections 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, and 14, and prayed that these lines and the several corners be established. It appeared that Frank Ross owned the E. 1/2 of section 11 and the defendant Eggert the N. E. 1/4 of section 14, and the line between these tracts is the only one involved on this appeal. In his answer, Eggert pleaded in bar a decree entered October 19, 1906, in a cause wherein Ross was plaintiff and one Hagenstein, a tenant of Eggert, was defendant. Therein Ross alleged that he was constructing a fence along the south line of his land, whereupon Hagenstein had maliciously torn down and removed the fence, and as he was insolvent,prayed he be enjoined from interfering further. In his answer Hagenstein admitted interference with the fence and averred that it was on Eggert's land and that the division line was north of it and was indicated by the location of an old fence which had been acquiesced in for many years. This was denied in reply, and the old fence said to have been erected by Eggert's grantor when he owned both tracts. On hearing the petition was dismissed, and the writ of injunction dissolved. On appeal the decree was affirmed, as appears from the opinion, solely on the ground that the fence Ross undertook to erect was not on the true line. Ross v. Hagenstein, 116 N. W. 1064. The trial court was not asked to designate the true division line, nor did it undertake to do so. The most that can be claimed for that decree is that it adjudicated that the fence as erected by Ross was on Eggert's land. It did not determine to whom any of the land north of it belonged, and this being so, it is too clear for fair argument that the former decree was not a bar to the determination in this proceeding of the location of the true line north of that on which the fence was being erected. All decided in the former suit was that as the fence was on Eggert's land, his tenant rightly removed it. Beyond this, the location of the true line was not...