The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1914-08-06
Establishing Road.

An Iowa subscriber writes the
Wallace Farmer:
81 am writing you in regard to {
case parallel with the one you clteo
in recent issue of your paper. The
county attorney Of this county
(Buen Vista) is Of the opinion thai
they ,cn make me move the fence
back, although it has been on the
present line for twenty-five years
The inquiry and answer published
and referred to in the above inquiry
reads as follows:
'''A has a fifteen acre tract of
land in Mahaska county, Iowa, which
adjoins public road running east
and west, and public road running
north and south, the north and south
road being between Marion and Ma
haska counties. The stone set out
in accordance with the government
survey on the corner of the section
shows that A has placed the cornec
post of his fence about eight feet
cut onto the public road, that is, he
gives only fourteen or fifteen feet of
the road. The road has to be forty
five feet wide On the east end of
his land he gives half of the road.
"a Can A be compelled to move his
fence so that he gives half of the
road all the way? CD What should
be done to compel A to move his
fence7
"'1. Yes; A can he legally COM
PEELED to move his fence back to the
proper line, thereby making the road
the proper width at the point named,
unless it can be proven that A has
been in continuous, adverse and unin-
terrupted possession of this land for
4 period of ten years or over. In
that event he would have a prescrip-
tive title to the strip of land in ques-
ton, and could not be legally requir-,
ed to move his fence $
In answering the foregoing in
quiry, we assume from the facts stat
ed that the controversy in question
existed between adjoining owners as
to their respective boundary lines.
We stated in our opinion rendered in
answer to that inquiry that A could
be compelled to remove his fence to
the proper boundary line unless he
was able to prove that he had been
In continuous, uninterrupted, and adj
verse possession of the land in ques-
ton for a period of ten years and
over, that is to say his title or right
to possession of that land could be
established by acquiescence.
The case of Quinn VS.. Baage, 1873
Iowa, 1926, states, we believe, the
general rule where the controversy
exists between a municipality or 9TH
.er body exercising governmental
functions and land owner. This
case holds that the doctrine of ad-
verse possession or acquiescence does
not apply in cases of that character,
rs in controversies between adjoin-
ing owners or between individuals,
for the reason that the statute of
limitations does not run against a
state or any of it's instrumentalities
30 as to prevent the exercise of it's
proper governmental functions.
Our supreme court has also held,
In the case of Johnson VS.. the City
of Shenandoah, 1873 Iowa, 493, that
in controversies between private own
ers regarding their lines and boun-
deries, the Intervention of highway
between their premises has no effect
upon the doctrine of adverse posses
sion or acquiescence, and ii the
plaintiff or defendant, as the case
may be, is able to prove that he has
been in continuous, uninterrupted
and adverse possession of the land in
question for period of ten years or
over, the title to the land in question
would undoubtedly rest with him.
IN the Mahaska county case, we as
mued from the facts - stated Ia that
inquiry that the dispute had arisen
hs1ween private owners. For that res