Wunnicke v. Dederich
| Citation | 160 Wis. 462,152 N.W. 139 |
| Parties | WUNNICKE v. DEDERICH. |
| Decision Date | 13 April 1915 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Richland County; George Clementson, Judge.
Action by Charles Wunnicke against Peter Dederich. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
The parties to this action are the owners of adjoining farms, and the plat given herewith shows the location of their respective lands:
IMAGE
On this appeal, the controversy is confined to the triangular tract, no appeal having been taken from the finding of the circuit court establishing the true boundary line between the N. W. 1/4 of the S. E. 1/4 and the S. W. 1/4 of the S. E. 1/4. Some time previous to the commencement of this action a survey of the lines of this section was made by Marshall Appleby, the county surveyor, in pursuance of an order of the county court. Being dissatisfied with the Appleby survey, plaintiff caused a survey to be made by one Shranke, and he established the line between the Appleby line and the location of the old fence, as shown on the plat, which had been located there for over 30 years. Before the trial of the action Shranke died, and plaintiff had the lines again surveyed by E. J. Lunenschloss,who prepared the said plat, Exhibit B, showing the respective surveys and line fences. Plaintiff brought this action to recover possession of land alleged to be unlawfully withheld from him by defendant, and in his complaint he describes the triangular tract in question as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of the S. E. 1/4 of the S. E. 1/4 of section 25, township No. 10 north, range No. 2 east, thence east along the 40 line 64 rods to the center of the highway which traverses said 40 acres in a southwesterly direction from the north line thereof, thence along the center of said highway in a southwesterly direction 25 rods, thence in a direct line to a point on the 40-acre line two rods south of the place of beginning and thence north to the place of beginning. The court found the true boundary line on the north to be the old fence, represented on Exhibit B by the black dotted line drawn across the 40, and that the west boundary is a line 2 rods long, extending south from the old fence line, and that the south boundary is a line drawn from the south end of the said two rods, running southeasterly to a point upon the east line of the tract, marked on Exhibit B “Shranke's Corner,” and the east boundary, a diagonal line running from Shranke's corner northeasterly along the east line of the five-acre tract to the old fence. From judgment entered dismissing plaintiff's complaint this appeal is taken.
Burnham & Black, of Richland Center, for appellant.
Bancroft & Johns, of Richland Center, for respondent.
BARNES, J. (after stating the facts as above).
The southeast quarter of the section in which is located the strip of land involved in this controversy was settled more than 50 years ago, and fences were built presumably on what were supposed to be the boundary lines between the government subdivisions. As early as 1855, according to the abstract offered and received in evidence, the five-acre tract, the boundary of which is here involved, was carved out of the S. E. 1/4 of the S. E. 1/4. It is undisputed that at an early day, perhaps not long after this particular parcel was separately conveyed, a fence was built on what was assumed to be its southwest boundary line, and that such fence was maintained for a great many years. It fell into decay, however, and at the time of the trial it had disappeared, although the testimony shows that its location could be ascertained without difficulty. The occupants of the lands caused a survey to be made by one Appleby. He located the southwest boundary line of the five-acre parcel to the north of the old fence. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with this line, and employed one Shranke to make a survey. Shranke located the east end of the south line 10 feet to the south of the corner established by Appleby. Both seem to have established the westerly end of such line at the same point. The two lines were 10 feet apart at their easterly end, and gradually converged until they met at a common point on the west boundary line. By agreement the plaintiff was to keep up the west half and the defendant the east half of the fence on this southwest boundary line. After the Shranke survey was made, plaintiff built his half of the fence on the Shranke line and the defendant built his portion on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daniel R. Northrop v. Opperman
...occupancy and acquiescence, and even reputation and hearsay as to the boundaries, may have weight.” See also Wunnicke v. Dederich, 160 Wis. 462, 467, 152 N.W. 139 (1915) ( “Under the repeated decisions of this court the ancient fence lines around this parcel of land, maintained as they were......
-
Peter H. and Barbara J. Steuck Living Trust v. Easley
...12 Wiese v. Swersinske, 265 Wis. 258, 61 N.W.2d 312 (1953); Grell v. Ganser, 255 Wis. 381, 39 N.W.2d 397 (1949); Wunnicke v. Dederich, 160 Wis. 462, 152 N.W. 139 (1915); Brew v. Nugent, 136 Wis. 336, 117 N.W. 813 (1908); Wollman v. Ruehle, 104 Wis. 603, 80 N.W. 919 (1899); Welton v. Poynter......
-
Nagel v. Philipsen
...years. Wiese v. Swersinske, 1953, 265 Wis. 258, 61 N.W.2d 312; Grell v. Ganser, 1949, 255 Wis. 381, 39 N.W.2d 397; Wunnicker v. Dederich, 1915, 160 Wis. 462, 152 N.W. 139; Brew v. Nugent, 1908, 136 Wis. 336, 117 N.W. 813; Wollman v. Ruehle, 1899, 104 Wis. 603, 80 N.W. 919; Welton v. Poynter......
-
Grell v. Ganser
...be conceded that a line can be established by acquiescence of the parties that may differ from a surveyed or true line. Wunnicke v. Dederich, 160 Wis. 462, 152 N.W. 139, and cases cited therein; Husted v. Willoughby, 117 Mich. 56, 75 N.W. 279; Pittsburgh & L. A., Iron Co. v. Lake Superior I......