, 1873-03-21
Twenty Years Of Litigation Brought
to q Close.
The Boundaries Of Bronson's Addition
Fixed aS Last.
Bisscl's Ilcjointlcr to Dlnnchnrtl-""
The Teetort Courteous.
Dotnns In Tic various Courts--.Goncral Notos..'
]locorl OF Now Sutt3.

Tho twenty years' litigation TINT has boon 60
ing OH will, respect to tho boundaries Of Bron-
CONS Addition, on tho North sido, Inns boon
brought to an ond, tho Supreme Court having
delivered tho following decision by Judge Wakl-
or:
Ills Honor said:
This was ~ Mellon qaaro clsusum fregit Dromght py
poiant Defendant pleaded liberum tene1nontlnl, mud
sreon paintin sw assSne%a % ha ,ss caereed 1ns n
ground t1e north si1o Of the cloHc being Hcven feot
IL width at tho wcat enl Clark street, dininish!ng
oru teiyncnuni. TO tho latter Of which plaintiff In
itu isse Naro found on o roadinss, and trial
had BY tue Court a,,I ry .ssn ~ IN yora1cs @ r.,
appealed 10 tpis court It nppcaTn hat both rarsies
oain tillo to adoining pre1ni.es from .e sSno com
@ iine Ieswcen etr premises IN lot q oi nro,uons
Addition to Chicago Appellant wo owns thS e., nnrie r
ai nst apess s sa boons sea I'll ha
Of the o Il appears that que Mnechlsehnsr con ;,
asyst1'pa ssysa g y .p5slIees s' landlord @
width on tho north eide oftho sonth laf Of tho lot
to year for wll:eh ho was IN did not expire until be
2oh Of APRIL 1872 st tho Tine tho trespasa ig claimed
Tho trno location Of the central no dividing The lot
appellant claiming h; It runs nong 9 sovh Inc ~, 9a
ssT Co., r ssss% @ hs':n
Es5sd PsSss nj t.;s: :ssso Hss ss ssn '
tho quarter ye along car street tat when l!a
tIvated tsr ios. 1te saya 10 ouhllvded ma plated
the lots previously sold thn after tho plat was re-
corded hc In 1sl5, discovered that he BY lnstakc or
oar utec utreet for tic orh liza Of Lo IS tn feel aror
north than called for on t9 plat that he hna akcn .he
stake as starting pots L. surveying r., e 9ta s'ng
thus appcara that al the lots including ~ lying North
of %, were located tcu feet farther north on clnrk
take lhcovcred hc says II was regarded Us nntn,
porlan tlu ten feet Of rxccss In Lot % was not
in tho map, and in having It ngain recorded. ?'here
wero pa,cd ut the corcra and at tho ccnsre Of Tho
rs is7o to satcs were fonu Ut tho proper places mud
tho fences conformed to thom aa tho proper corners
Tho foceB thia lu were erected from to
years hcfore tho treHass complained Of in
suit nr1 with tho exception Of tho fenco on ihe north
linz of Lot %, which waH moved IN OIL opening q
maintained on tho original Inc, where they art
placed until burnt by Tho fro Of Oct Q, l971 tap
found that tho original corner statea to this lot
responded with ltg exterior fcncca cnd then placed
q o u ne & to sas IT ha @
III dispute. After tho middle fence was destroyed by
ro, T. WA replaced but appellant ,nbstiug TIT he
nmong the lots lying north Of It, determined TO arpro
II to his use, and brought suit n ot0st1nsnt
snit was .pendine and undetermined, appel:
lint removed the fence and took poszess!on q
tho strip. Tho true boundary lines Of Lot ~
arc where they antua9y run on tie ground, and
where they were marked by tl.o monuments placed by
o ost pasactor eydsnco @ 81 tue pseo erc
Tho monuments must necessarily control tho nclt-
stfs ai and teS Hs :: sss
aaMany M o he by s S' csst ass dsea asfs oSss
eases, and must 10 regarded tho settled law. The
IN this eae IT, establish sSyona n
~; :s ssS ,s IT, r. = SS:' tss
50, then ~ tho landlord Of appellee, and
those under whom 10 claimed, were The owners to thf
iot a1a tley my holI md enjoy Go property accord
ing to tho lines then a1ea. And there q no doub
T. The s ang M ,dr na o s
was placed juu half wpy bctwee, tho north aud soutl
lines Of tue lot, aud appellants south line Trent
no. wi'nla tsse bedsrss. syery insa io Ro5shass; @
md paid for when hs reeoiso s deea W9 81 anye ven y
ans Of s o3. Asap q
9ss m usg o an nS for
thsn twenty Years.. sontinaousy " !hsnselve
Their tenans Th oon9 maa9o 9o a ,s ,nanaS sta,a
tho boundaries of uctun possession and TO bar
entries whoro hsro a no person within tno naVsnhs
fhs statute u favor Of peraons under disability It l1
noen held that whore parties agree upon honndar
ilno between them, and enter into possession accord
ina to that line, that they thereby concluded fro1
afterwards dsputin tint It Is the true lne cyc whe1
tho statute of limitation has not run. c59well
pmfh aton nal q atss 4ss % Tho eyidsaae sho"
s eage TINT TIC owners aonns q h1 IL lot G efess tt
noundaries l % to te4o lots and hayo recognized and
auicsceA In such boundaries as the truo lines for
s sEoa @ a5s1 ps sz pg " hs nonsc aws
an 9t The aqfnas Sn M
nd hence lad tic rGht tosue for and recover aana9
j. prepared to SOY that tho da1uagca found by the Jul
+ aro excessive. appellant ~ w"nt1n, negni, a
own hands. liz las deprived arpellee Of Its right
possession Of Tho ground, injured his business o.
ss sq aos that tho % o faets n '
a Mo do not regard thcae damages too large. Tho
a 6ructous given for appellee nro IN harmony with u
by appellant ind refused by tho Court, opposed
lie rules wo have herein announced. and were pro
Torceying no error In this record. tho judgment
Tho court helow Is affirmed. ..-..
o nEsroNs1n111Ty ron BROKEN RENT AonEEMEa r
l. Audyianna Y. Gilos Bros Co., jewelers., ts
= interesting casc to storekaopers nov on trial
- foro Judge Booth. A few duyB after tho tlI
the plaintiff let tho front part Of store to- T.
Ii nt No. O75 WabnBh avonuo. for e, 600 per 2 I,
"a nun, payable Mt tho rate OF $3.50 per month,
~ ginning tie 18th Of October, 1871 but when :
- plnintiif offered tho defendants tho key, tloy
Of Fused to accept it,, and The promises lay racs S
ut nome time, wherefore suit ID brought for S3, q
rs damages. The dofcnso was, that t
n. condition Of The, promiaos when Il, t
~ =, koy WIS tondorcd was not the 80,
co Of tic store having boen grcnty deprecated
tho plaintiff having lot tho basement Of tho bui
Of ng for billiard saloo1,. Tho defendants int