Simpson v. Sheridan

• Decision Date: 05 May 1950
• Docket Number: No. 35070,35070
• Citation: 42 N.W.2d 402,231 Minn. 118
• Parties: SIMPSON et al. v. SHERIDAN et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 402

42 N.W.2d 402

231 Minn. 118

SIMPSON et al. v. SHERIDAN et al.

No. 35070.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 5, 1950.

Syllabus by the Court.

In dispute involving correct location of boundary line between land owned by plaintiffs and defendants, Held that evidence sustains court's finding that adverse possession of defendants had not existed continuously for 15 years.

Clifford W. Gardner, St. Paul, John D. Sullivan, St. Paul, William W. Fink, St. Paul, for appellants.

Urban J. Steimann, Faribault, for respondents.

KNUTSON, Justice.

This case involves a boundary-line dispute. Plaintiffs are the fee owners of a tract of land in Rice county, comprising a part of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section 35, township 110 north, range 21 west, which contains about 21 acres.

Defendant Esther Sheridan owns the land immediately to the west of and adjoining plaintiffs' land. Both parcels are bounded on the south by trunk highway No. 60, which runs west from the city of Faribault.

An old barbed-wire fence separates the two tracts of land. In 1947, plaintiff Floyd R. Simpson employed Walter G. Docken, Rice county surveyor, to make a survey of plaintiffs' property. He found the true line between plaintiffs' and defendants' properties to be 3.8 feet west of the fence separating the two properties at the north end and 13.4 feet west of the fence at the south end. In other words, according to the survey so made, the fence encroached upon plaintiffs' property 3.8 feet at the north end and 13.4 feet at the south end. It is this small strip of land which is involved in this litigation.

The court found that defendants were in possession of the strip of land in question that such possession had not continued for the required statutory period of 15 years, M.S.A. § 541.02, but had continued only for a period of not to exceed 11 years; and that as a consequence defendants had not acquired title by adverse possession. From an order denying defendants' motion for amended findings or a new trial, they appeal.

The only question raised by this appeal is whether the court's finding that defendants' possession of the disputed strip had not continued for the required statutory period of 15 years is sustained by the evidence.

The evidence relied upon to establish adverse possession, or to rebut it, relates largely to the location of the fence with respect to certain culverts or driveways located on or near the boundary line leading from trunk highway No. 60.

Plaintiff Floyd R. Simpson testified that he purchased the land which he claimed on or about August 10, 1946; that in 1937 one William Kenow ran a beer stand on a small portion of the tract involved located in the extreme southwest corner thereof; that he (Simpson) was at that time a distributor of pop and beer and had occasion to go upon the premises in making deliveries to Kenow; that at that time there was a driveway about 32 feet in width at the west line of the premises occupied by Kenow and that there was another driveway over a culvert somewhat east of the 32-foot driveway; that he drove into the property on the east driveway and out of it on the west driveway; that at that time the fence was located on the west line of the westerly driveway; and that it is now located in the center of the driveway.

William Kenow testified that during the summer months of 1937 he ran a...