Case Name: Meyer v. Weigman
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1877-04-17
Citations: 45 Iowa 579
Docket Number: 
Parties: Meyer v. Weigman.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 45
Pages: 579–586

Head Matter:
Meyer v. Weigman.
1. Evidence: adverse possession: boundary line. In an action to - settle a boundary line between parties owning adjoining sections, where they stipulated that each was the owner in fee of the section he claimed, and where in the-petition plaintiff claimed to own a division fence extending beyond the limits of his section, evidence tending to prove his adverse possession of the disputed area by thé plaintiff for more than twenty years was admissible. Adams, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Clayton District Court.
Tuesday, April 17.
This is a suit in equity to ascertain and settle the boundary line between. lands owned by sthe plaintiff and other lands owned by the defendant. It is alleged in the petition that plaintiff is the owner in fee simple of certain subdivisions of lands, which are particularly described; that said lands have been held in the open, actual, continued, and uninterrupted possession of the plaintiff, and those under whom he claims, for more than twenty years next preceding the commencement of this suit, and during said time a fixed and permanent division fence has been kept up and continued unchanged along the south lino, as and for the south line of section twenty-five; that defendant owns, or claims to own, the northwest quarter of section thirty-six, adjoining the land of the plaintiff on the south, and that in November, 1870, the defendant took forcible possession of a part of plaintiff’s land, and now holds possession thereof, claiming it as a part of section thirty-six. The prayer is that the- boundary line between plaintiff’s and defendant’s lands be established, under the direction of the court.
The answer denies the allegations of the petition not admitted, and alleges that defendant is the owner of the northwest quarter of section thirty-six, and that the true boundary line is that knowm as the Peck line, being the line along which the fence of the defendant was built. It is further alleged in the answer that the'old fence along said northern boundary (being the fence claimed by plaintiff as the boundary) was crooked, and was not regarded by plaintiff and those under whom he claims, or by defendant, as the true boundary line of said tract, and that the true line was sought and found by mutual agreement of plaintiff and defendant, and that without objection defendant built his fence upon said line, where it now stands.
The case was referred by consent of the parties. The referee reported that the plaintiff and those under whom he claimed had. held adv.erse possession for more than twenty years up to the line know.n as the Keeler and Whitman fence line, and that, wherever the original section line may have been, plaintiff was entitled to hold to the said fence because of,his adverse possession. There was a decree in accordance with the report of the referee and defendant appeals.
Hatch da Frese, W. F. Odell and Woodward da Preston, for appellant.
James 0. Crosby, for appellee.

Opinion:
Eothrock, J.
I. Pending the hearing before the referee, and after the introduction of some evidence upon the part of plaintiff, the certified abstract of the entry of plaintiff's land was introduced in evidence, whereupon the parties agreed that the plaintiff owned in fee simple the east half of the southwest quarter, and thirty feet wide along the south side of the west half of said quarter to the Dubuque road, of section 25, 94, 4, and that the defendant owned in fee simple the northwest quarter of section 36, 94, 4.
It is urged by appellant that under the pleadings and this agreement no evidence as to an adverse possession was admissible, and that the only issue between the parties was- as to the true line between the sections as established by the government survey. It seems to us that under the allegations of the petition, fairly construed, the plaintiff claimed to hold to the fence alleged by him to be the boundary line. Under no other construction can any force be given to the claim of adverse possession. He avers that this fence was kept up and maintained as and for the south line of section twenty-five. He does not allege that it was in fact upon the line established by the government survey. The allegation that he was the owner of certain sub-divisions of land was denied by the answer, and when it became necessary to prove his record title and he introduced the first item of evidence, the agreement as to title in both parties was made, not, as we assume, for the purpose of adjusting any right claimed, but only to obviate the necessity of formal proof of what neither party really disputed. We think, upon the whole record being considered, the agreement should have no greater effect than this. The parties before and after the agreement introduced evidence as to the location, continuance, and permanency of the partition fence claimed by plaintiff as his boundary, and evidence as to the possession of the plaintiff up to the fence. On the trial the plaintiff sought to prove that the fence was upon the true line between the sections, and in addition thereto that he was entitled to hold to the fence because of adverse possession, wherever the original line may have heen.
II. We think the evidence as to the possession by the plaintiff up to the fence claimed by him as the boundary between the parties, and the adverse character of such possession, fully sustains the report of the referee and the decree of the court below. The case as made comes squarely within the rule announced in Brown v. Bridges, 31 Iowa, 138.
Affirmed.