Wingler v. Simpson

Decision Date14 February 1884
Docket Number11,148
Citation93 Ind. 201
PartiesWingler v. Simpson
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

From the Washington Circuit Court.

S. H Mitchell and R. B. Mitchell, for appellant.

S. B Voyles and H. Morris, for appellee.

OPINION

Franklin C.

This is an appeal to the circuit court from a survey. Trial by the court, finding against the survey, and, over a motion for a new trial, a new survey ordered. Error has been assigned upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial. The reasons stated in the motion are, admitting improper evidence, that the finding is not sustained by sufficient evidence, and is contrary to law.

The admitted evidence complained of is testimony tending to prove that the appellee had held open, notorious and uninterrupted possession, under color and claim of title, to the land in controversy for more than twenty years. The dispute between the parties was over the boundary line running between their lands. The surveyor had established the line a few rods west of where it had formerly existed by their fencing, cutting off a strip of land that had formerly been occupied by appellee. Appellee appealed from the survey.

The line is not one that was established by the congressional surveys, but is a subdivision line north and south through the east half of a certain quarter section. In the evidence, the parties traced their respective titles back to a time when the lands on both sides of the line were owned by one Henry Ratts.

On the 14th day of November, 1831, said Ratts and wife conveyed to Addison Viles the lands now owned by appellant. In that conveyance they are described as follows: "A certain piece, tract or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the county of Washington and State of Indiana, and known and described as being part of the east half of the northwest quarter of section seven in township one north, of range four east, in the district of lands offered for sale at Jeffersonville; beginning at the northeast corner of the northwest quarter of section seven in township one north, of range four east, then running south along a marked line to the open line, it is supposed to be about one hundred and sixty rods, thence west with the open line to Godfrey Ratts' corner about fifty rods, thence north along a marked line (this is the line in dispute) to Reachart Wilson's corner, near said Viles' spring, thence northeastward to the beginning, the same being forty acres more or less." This same description is embraced in all the subsequent deeds down to, and including, appellant's deed.

On the 21st day of April, 1833, said Henry Ratts, by his will, devised to Godfrey Ratts "a lot of land he had run off for him by Elijah Wright of the quarter section whereon Addison Viles now lives, containing about forty-nine acres." This tract, in 1859, was sold by a commissioner in partition proceedings between the heirs of Godfrey Ratts, to appellee, who has owned and occupied the same ever since, and the east line of which is the one in dispute between the parties. There appears to have been a lane established on what was supposed to be said line, for a part of the way, more than forty years ago, and for the balance of the way more than twenty years before the survey. There was some evidence that appellee's fence at the south end of the land had, in the last three years, been moved a short distance east, and after the lane was established there were some marked or blazed trees standing along in the lane, but were at the time of the survey all cut down and removed, only some stumps remaining.

We think, under the facts in this case, in connection with the other evidence, it was competent for appellee to prove...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • Miller v. Mills County
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • May 24, 1900
    ...by the statute of limitations to bar a right of entry." To the same effect, see Burris v. Fitch, 76 Cal. 395 (18 P. 864); Wingler v. Simpson, 93 Ind. 201; Ball Cox, 7 Ind. 453; Dyer v. Eldridge, 136 Ind. 654 (36 N.E. 522); Hubbard v. Stearns, 86 Ill. 35; Sheets v. Sweeney, 136 Ill. 336 (26 ......
  • Webb v. Rhodes
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • October 23, 1901
    ...90 Ind. 165;Richwine v. Presbyterian Church, 135 Ind. 80, 34 N. E. 737;Cleveland v. Obenchain, 107 Ind. 591, 8 N. E. 624;Wingler v. Simpson, 93 Ind. 201. “The possession of land cannot be more than the exercise of exclusive dominion over it.” What more could have been done by Haag to indica......
  • Strosser v. City of Fort Wayne
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • February 25, 1885
    ...Diehl v. Zanger, 39 Mich. 601; Hagey v. Detweiler, 35 Pa. 409; Columbet v. Pacheco, 48 Cal. 395; Meyers v. Johnson, 15 Ind. 261; Wingler v. Simpson, 93 Ind. 201; Pitcher v. Dove, 99 Ind. 175. It is that the mistake which caused the invalidity of the annexation proceedings was one of fact. G......
  • Echterling v. Kalvaitis, 29294
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • May 18, 1955
    ...fee-simple title to the strip in question by operation of law, and the original title of appellants was thereby extinguished. Wingler v. Simpson, 1884, 93 Ind. 201; Riggs v. Riley, 1888, 113 Ind. 208, 15 N.E. 253; Dyer v. Eldridge, 1894, 136 Ind. 654, 36 N.E. 522; Palmer v. Dosch, 1897, 148......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT