Pierro v. City of Minneapolis

• Decision Date: 15 March 1918
• Docket Number: No. 20715.,20715.
• Parties: PIERRO v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

139 Minn. 394

166 N.W. 766

PIERRO

v.CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS.

No. 20715.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

March 15, 1918.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Joseph W. Molyneaux, Judge.

Action by Catherine Pierro against the City of Minneapolis. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

In order to prove title by adverse possession it is necessary to prove, not only possession, but hostile possession. When a street is dedicated by plat, the city may choose its own time to occupy, open and use the street, and until it does so, possession of the street by the abutting owner who owns the fee of the street, is not regarded as hostile and the statute of limitations will not commence to run. Healy & La Du, of Minneapolis, for appellant.

James D. Shearer and L. B. Byard, both of Minneapolis, for respondent.

HALLAM, J.

Bottineau's second addition to the town of St. Anthony, now in the city of Minneapolis, was platted in 1855. Between blocks 6 and 7, Warren street, later known as Twentieth Avenue Northeast, was dedicated to the public. This street was never actually opened to public travel. In 1878 plaintiff's husband acquired part of block 7 and plaintiff and her husband together acquired the balance of said block and all of block 6. At this time, blocks 6 and 7, together with the portion of Warren street that lay between them, were inclosed as one parcel, and plaintiff and her husband occupied the whole inclosure until 1905 and cultivated the same for market garden purposes. They erected a dwelling house on block 7. In 1905 plaintiff was divorced from her husband and by the decree she was given her husband's interest in these blocks, described by reference to the plat. Plaintiff's possession thereafter continued. In 1915 the city of Minneapolis condemned blocks 6 and 7 for park purposes and compensation was made to plaintiff therefor. In the proceeding the property was described as ‘block 6’ and ‘block 7’ of Bottineau's second addition. No mention was made of the intervening street.

Of course, the fee title to the street was always in plaintiff. If it was still a street, however, it is conceded that the description in the condemnation proceeding of blocks 6 and 7 was sufficient to take the intervening street as well as the adjacent blocks particularly described. Plaintiff's contention is that by adverse possession of her husband and herself, she has barred the public easement in Warren street and that since Warren street is no longer a street, it is a distinct parcel of unincumbered land and did not pass by the condemnation of blocks 6 and 7.

It is evident, therefore, that if plaintiff's claim of adverse possession fails, her whole case must fail. The trial court found against her on this issue. That is, the court found that the occupation of the street by plaintiff and her husband...