The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1913-04-10
COURT AWARDS Her CLAIMS
Long Fight Over Small Strip of Land
Adjoining Milwaukee Avenue is Set
tied by Decision of Judge Belden in
the Circuit Court This Morning.

long contested suit Of Mary Kniep
against the city of Kenosha. The case
has been in court for number of years
and it has attracted a great deal of
attention among people Of the north
side. Mrs. Kniep claimed seventeen
feet of the land formerly a part of
the street leading to the bridge over
the river to Washington Island. The
action was brought shortly after the
bridge was moved to Middle street. In
rendering a decision in the case, Judge
Belden has gone into the matter at
length. In his opinion he says:
State Of Wisconsin,, Circuit Court,
Kenosha County.
Mary Khiep, plaintiff, vs.. City Of
Kenosha, de PENDANT.
Plaintiff is the owner of lot number
three (3),S block eighty (80), north
east quarter section thirty-one (3D,
township two (2), range twenty-three
(23) east, excepting the south forty
one (41) feet thereof, heretofore con
veyed to another.
According to surveyor Is plat and
the minutes Of the original survey, the
length Of the south line of lot three is
sc feet; the length Of the west, or
Main street line is 81 feet; the length
of the south line of lots one, two and
four and the west line of lots one and
two are given The intersection Of the
west line Of lots one and two and the
line between lots three and four gives
a point; straight line drawn from
the point 81 feet north of the south
west corner Of block so, being the
northwest corner of block 80 as shown
on the plat, running northeasterly and
touching the point of intersection of
the west line Of lots one and two and
the hneAbetween lots three and four,
fixes the north boundary line of lots
three and two according to the plat;
the length Of the west line of lot two
is given; thus the location, length and
course Of the north line of lot three
as shown on the plat are determined
with reasonable certainty.
The surveyors minutes state that
the width Of alley number five between
block so and block IA is 20 feet.
There is a surplusage at the north Of
block "a. Does such surplusage belong
to the plaintiff?
The supreme court of Wisconsin has
laid down the rule that where a piece
Of land is sub-divided into lots, and
the plat of the subdivision recorded,
and the actual aggregate frontage of
said lot is less than is called for by
the plat, the deficiency must be divid-
ed among the several lots in proportion
to their respective frontage as indicat-
ed by the plat; and that the same rule
obtains where the actual measure
ments are in excess of the measure
ments specifically designated upon the
plat, that is to say, where the actual
frontage Of the block exceeds the sum
of the frontages of the lots therein as
marked On the recorded plat, the ex-
cess should be apportioned among all
Of the lots and not given to single
lot whose frontage differs from the
others. (Pereles VS.. Magoon rs Wis.
27)
Lot three is the entire west frontage
Of block so and, under the rule cited,
the plaintiff is entitled to the surplu-
sage.
The court holds that there was no
dedication of any part of said lot
three or of any part of such surplusage
by the plaintiff or her predecessors in
title, to the public for highway pur-
poses; that neither the defendant city
nor the public has gained any title to
any of lot three or of such surplusage
lying south of the south line Of said
20 foot alley, either by prescription or
adverse usage, and that the width of
the alley has not been widened by in
termitent use by occasional travel
ers; that the plaintiff is not estopped
from making claim to or from her
rights of ownership to the surpusage
in question.
The court is of the opinion that the
plaintiff is entitled to the Judgment
prayed for.
Dated this 3rd day of April, A. D.
1913.
By the Court.