Skinner v. Crawford

• Decision Date: 17 June 1880
• Citation: 6 N.W. 144,54 Iowa 119
• Parties: SKINNER v. CRAWFORD.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

54 Iowa 119

6 N.W. 144

SKINNER

v.CRAWFORD.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed June 17, 1880.

Appeal from Jones district court.

This is an action for the possession of a strip of land across the south side of a certain described 40 acres of land, four rods wide at the east end and three rods wide at the west end. The defendant filed an answer denying all the allegations of the petition, and pleading the statute of limitations. The cause was to a jury and a verdict was returned for the plaintiff. The motion for a new trial was overruled and judgment was entered for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.R. Somerby and Sheean & McCarn, for appellant.

Remley & Ercanbrack, for appellee.

DAY, J.

The court, amongst other instructions, upon its own motion, directed the jury as follows:

“1. As before seen, the burden of proof in establishing adverse possession is on the party setting it up, and the facts constituting such possession must be satisfactorily established. If the defendant, when he took possession of the land in controversy--if you find that he did take possession of it--only intended to claim and occupy the north-east quarter of the north-east quarter of section 22, town and range aforesaid, but, by mistake, extended his fence too far north and included a part of the south-east quarter of the south-east quarter of section 15, in said town and range, in his possession, and made improvements and cultivated the same ever since, then such facts alone do not in law constitute adverse possession, which will entitle him to hold it as against the true owner, even though you should find that he held possession of the same for ten years continuously before the commencement of this action.

8. If, as before seen, the evidence satisfies you that the true and original section corner and line is as claimed by Skinner, then, in law, Skinner will be entitled to a verdict, unless the defendant should satisfy you that he held open and notorious and adverse possession of the disputed tract for 10 years, under a color of title or claim of right. An essential element of adverse possession is a claim of right adversely to the true owner or his grantors; and, as we have stated, such possession must be open, notorious and continuous for the statutory period before it will ripen into a title. Hence, if you believe that Crawford did enter upon said land without any color of title, or without claiming any right thereto, then a possession under such circumstances is not adverse; and a possession without such color of title, or claim of right, will not ripen into a title, will not become adverse possession, however long it may continue.”

On plaintiff's motion the court gave the jury the following instructions:

“If you find that plaintiff is the owner of the south-east quarter of the south-east quarter of section 15, and that the strip of land in controversy is in said south-east quarter of south-east quarter of section 15, and that said strip of land has been in the possession of the defendant for more than 10 years prior to the commencement of this suit, then it will be essential for you to consider the intention in which the possession was taken and held by the defendant; and if you find that the defendant's claim was limited to certain land in section 22, but that his possession extended to and covered the strip of land in dispute, you are instructed that this did not amount to adverse possession,...