Village of Glencoe v. Wadsworth

• Decision Date: 10 February 1892
• Citation: 51 N.W. 377,48 Minn. 402
• Parties: VILLAGE OF GLENCOE v WADSWORTH.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

48 Minn. 402

51 N.W. 377

VILLAGE OF GLENCOEvWADSWORTH.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Feb. 10, 1892.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. An actual entry upon and possession of land, though in fact tortious and without color of paper title, but under a claim of right thereto in opposition to and inconsistent with that of the true owner, may ripen into title by adverse possession.

2. The claim of the disseisor must be asserted as a matter of right so as to be notice to the owner.

3. Continued acts of ownership upon the property, occupying, using, and controlling it as owner, constitute the usual indicia of asserting a claim of title, and are sufficient notice of such claim to the owner.

Appeal from district court, McLeod county; CADWELL, Judge.

Action by the village of Glencoe against Henry Wadsworth to recover possession of a portion of a certain alley. Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Little & Nunn and F. R. Allen, for appellant.

W. F. Schoregge, for respondent.

VANDERBURGH, J.

The controversy is over the possession of an alley in the village of Glencoe, which includes within its bounds the town-site of Franklin as originally surveyed and platted. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of that portion of the alley in block 33, in the town-site of Franklin, running east and west between lots 3 and 6. These lots both front on the same street. The defendant is alleged to be in possession of the alley, and he occupies the same in connection with the lots named. He claims to have acquired title by adverse possession. The fact of defendant's possession and occupancy for upwards of 20 years before the suit was brought is shown by undisputed evidence. It is clearly shown that the alley has never been open during all that time, and that the defendant has so occupied it with his store and warehouse in connection with lot 6, his warehouse covering nearly the entire width of the alley. We think the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the possession was adverse, and under a claim of ownership.

Defendant did not enter under color of title; but this is not necessary, the other essential conditions to establish adverse possession being shown. A tortious entry upon and possession of land without color or pretense of paper title, but under a claim of right thereto, in opposition to and inconsistent with the title of the true owner, may ripen into title by adverse possession. Sedg. & W. Title Land, § 729; ...