Wegge v. Madler

• Decision Date: 09 October 1906
• Citation: 129 Wis. 412,109 N.W. 223
• Parties: WEGGE v. MADLER ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

129 Wis. 412

109 N.W. 223

WEGGE

v.MADLER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 9, 1906.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; Warren D. Tarrant, Judge.

Action by Rose Wegge against Peter H. Madler and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The following plats show the claims of the respective parties:

IMAGE

IMAGE

This is an action of ejectment. The facts are undisputed or found by the court, and are to the effect: That Ogden avenue runs east and west, and is 80 feet wide. That Van Buren street is 80 feet wide, and crosses that avenue at right angles; that the north side of lot 1, in block 137, abuts upon the south side of Ogden avenue, and the west end of that lot also abuts upon the east side of Van Buren street. That adjoining that lot on the south side thereof is lot No. 2 in the same block, and that lot also abuts upon Van Buren street on the west end thereof. That said lots were each a little over 127 feet long, east and west, and a little over 50 feet wide, north and south. That at the times mentioned Julius G. C. Kasten owned the portions of the two lots here in question. That March 21, 1902, the said Kasten agreed in writing with one John C. Kleist, acting for the plaintiff, to convey to him the parts of said lots described as commencing at a point 50 feet east of the northwest corner of said lot 1; thence east on the north line of said lot 1 to a point 27 1/2 feet west of the northeast corner of said lot 1; thence south 90 feet; thence east to the east line of said lot 2; thence south to the southeast corner of said lot 2; thence west on the south line of said lot 2 to the east line of Ormsby's land; thence north 45 feet; thence west 6 feet; and thence north to the place of beginning. The strip of land 27 1/2 feet wide off the east end of said lots was during the times herein mentioned the property of one Sonlander. In pursuance of that agreement the said Kasten on April 19, 1902, conveyed the same land therein described to the plaintiff. On May 12, 1902, said Kasten conveyed to the defendant Madler the parts of said lots described as commencing at the northwest corner of lot No. 1; running thence south 75 feet, along the west line of said lots 1 and 2; thence 50 feet east parallel to the north line of said lot 2 to a point which is 75 feet south of the north line of lot numbered 1; thence north, parallel to the west line of said lots 1 and 2, 75 feet, to a point in the north line of lot No. 1; thence west, along the north line of said lot 1, 50 feet to the place of beginning. This action was commenced against Madler alone May 22, 1902, and to the complaint therein Madler, by Carroll & Carroll, his attorneys therein, answered. Thereupon, and on June 7, 1902, the complaint was amended by making the said Julius G. C. Kasten a party defendant. To such amended complaint therein the said Kasten by his attorney, Otto R. Hansen, made answer. August 13, 1902, the said Kasten died intestate, leaving him surviving the defendant Alma Scheffer as his sole heir at law. Thereupon, and in January, 1903, a separate action of ejectment was commenced by this same plaintiff against the said Alma Scheffer and Alfred Scheffer, her husband, and they by their attorney, John F. Burke, made answer to the complaint therein. April 18, 1903, the two actions were duly consolidated. Upon the trial of the two actions thus consolidated a jury was waived, and at the close of the trial the court found in effect the facts stated, and upon such facts and the admitted facts reached the conclusion in effect that the title to the premises described in the deed to Madler was in him and superior to any claim or title thereto in the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff was forever barred from having or claiming any title under her said deed from said Kasten to the land so owned by the said Madler adverse to him, and that the defendants have their costs and disbursements therein to be taxed, and ordered judgment to be entered therein accordingly. Such judgment was duly entered July 3, 1905, dismissing the complaint upon the merits, and adjudging that Madler was entitled to the possession of the premises described in his deed, and that Madler recover from the plaintiff his costs in the action taxed at $150.55, and that Alma and Alfred Scheffer have and recover from the plaintiff their costs in the action taxed at $56.22, and that executions issue to enforce such judgment. From such judgment and the whole thereof the plaintiff brings this appeal.John C. Kleist, for appellant.

Carroll & Carroll, for respondent Madler.

John F. Burke, for respondents Alma and Alfred Sheffer.

CASSODAY, C. J. (after stating the facts).

It will be observed that the description of the land conveyed to the plaintiff commenced at a point 50 feet east of the northwest corner of lot 1, whereas the description of the land conveyed to the defendant Madler commenced at the northwest corner of lot 1. Thus it appears that the northwest corner of the lot was to be the northwest corner of Madler's land, and that a point 50 feet east of that corner was to be the northwest corner of the plaintiff's land. The...