Ross v. Hagenstein
| Citation | 116 N.W. 1064 |
| Parties | ROSS v. HAGENSTEIN. |
| Decision Date | 07 July 1908 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Wright County; J. R. Whitaker, Judge.
“Not to be officially reported.”
Suit in equity to enjoin defendant from removing or tearing down a fence along the south side of a sectional quarter section of land in Wright county. Defendant denied that the fence was on the true line, and claimed that he had a right to remove the same because it was set upon his own land. The trial court dismissed the petition, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Nagle & Nagle, for appellant.
H. J. Scales and Ladd & Rogers, for appellee.
The controversy is over the boundary or division line between a farm owned by plaintiff and one owned by one Eggert; defendant being Eggert's tenant. Involved in the controversy is the true line as fixed by the original survey, and a line which it is claimed is established by acquiescence or adverse possession. Plaintiff has no standing unless he shows in the first instance that the fence which he seeks to maintain is upon the true line as fixed by the original survey. He relies upon recent ex parte surveys, while defendant relies upon testimony showing the original monuments as corroborated by the field notes. After a careful reading of the testimony, we are constrained to agree with the trial court in holding that the fence erected by plaintiff is not upon the true line, that the recent survey is incorrect or inconclusive, and that, even if correct, it should not prevail over well-established marks and monuments.
The decree of the trial court has ample support in the evidence, and it must be, and it is, affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matson v. Poncin
...is incorrect or inconclusive, and that, even if correct, it should not prevail over well-established marks and monuments.” See Ross v. Hagenstein, 116 N. W. 1064. The language quoted sufficiently disposes of the claim that this was an adjudication of the grounds on which the district court ......
-
Matson v. Poncin
...the land north of it until 1896, not to exceed nine years prior to the commencement of the action. Such being the record in the case of Ross v. Hagenstein, it ought not to assumed, much less decided, that the district court in dismissing the petition found that the line marked by the fence ......
- Long v. Joder
- Long v. Joder