Small v. Robbins

• Decision Date: 01 October 1910
• Docket Number: 1,867.
• Citation: 110 P. 1128,33 Nev. 288
• Parties: SMALL et al. v. ROBBINS.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

110 P. 1128

33 Nev. 288

SMALL et al. v. ROBBINS.

No. 1,867.

Supreme Court of Nevada

October 1, 1910

Appeal from District Court, Washoe County.

Action by Fred L. Small and others against Ida Robbins.Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal.Affirmed.

Cheney Massey & Price, for appellants.Stoddard, Moore & Woodburn for respondent.

SWEENEY J.

This action was instituted on the 10th day of December, 1907, by the above-named appellants against the respondent to recover possession of a portion of lot 48, in the River Front, in the city of Reno, as shown by the original official plat and survey of the town (now city) of Reno.On the 4th day of September, 1901, and for some time prior thereto, the respondent was the owner by title deeds of lots 45, 46, and 47 of said River Front, and was the owner of the same continuously from said time down to the institution of this action.On the said 4th day of September, 1901, one C. S Martin was the owner of said lot 48, and other lots in said River Front lying to the east thereof.On the 7th day of May 1906, the said C. S. Martin conveyed said lot 48, together with lots 50 and 52, in said River Front, to W. H. Pierson, M. E. Cafferata, J. Pickard, and P. Saturno, which said grantees subsequently, and on the 28th day of September, 1906, conveyed said lots to the appellants herein.

It appears from the testimony that on the said 4th day of September, 1901, the said C. S. Martin became aware that the respondent, Ida Robbins, was constructing a building on what was believed by her to be lot 47, the said C. S. Martin, believing that said structure extended over a portion of said lot 48, then owned by him, personally made certain measurements of what he supposed at the time definitely located the dividing line between said lots 47 and 48.From the measurements so made by him at that time, it appeared that the respondent was encroaching upon lot 48 a distance of five feet.The said Martin notified the respondent that her building was extending over his lot 48 a distance of five feet, and requested her to remove the same therefrom.He then set a stake at a point which he claimed to be the dividing line between said lots.The respondent accepted as correct the division line so designated by the said Martin, caused the building which she was then constructing to be moved to the west a distance of five feet, built a fence along the division line as indicated by the said Martin, and proceeded to improve the ground to the west of said line by the building of a stone wall along the river, and filled in said lot; the improvements so made by her being estimated to be of a value of $1,800.After the said division line was so designated by Martin and acquiesced in by the respondent in September 1901, no further question was raised as to the correctness of said line until shortly prior to the institution of this action, a period of about six years.It further appears from the testimony that in locating the boundary line between said lots 47 and 48 the said Martin measured 125 feet westerly from a certain fence, which he supposed, and for many years prior thereto had supposed, marked the boundary line between lots 52 and 53 of said River Front, having been so informed many years prior thereto by his immediate grantor, but which fence was not in fact on said division line between lots 52 and 53, but was 22.8 feet east of the same.

From a letter written by the said C. S. Martin of date August 30 1908, and introduced in evidence without objection, appears what may be regarded as a correct statement of facts, which accounts for the error in locating the dividing line between said lots 47 and 48."I...