Court Opinion

ID: 8000625
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 01:48:58.388295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:35:42.581852
License: Public Domain

Scott, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court.
One Pinnell and the defendant, Wallace, were owners of a tract of land adjoining each other. It seems that the two tracts were legal subdivisions of sections as required to be subdivided by the laws of the United States. They agreed to run a partition fence between them, each one to have the portion of the fence he should make. Before the fence was put up, the line was run by the county surveyor between the owners, and it was supposed that each owner had put his portion of the fence on his own land. After-wards, Pinnell conveyed his tract to the plaintiffs, Gr. & J. Clymer. The defendant, having cause to apprehend that his fence was over the line and on the land which the plaintiffs had purchased from Pinnell, removed the fence he had put *559up a few feet, and placed it on bis own land. There was some evidence that the plaintiffs, at the time of their purchase from Pinnell, were aware of the existence of the agreement between him and the defendant Wallace in relation to the dividing fence, and that one of them said that the defendant Wallace was entitled to the rails, as he had made and put them up, and should have them if he would let them remain where they were. This is an action for taking away or removing the rails by the defendant. There were many instructions in the case, all of which will not be noticed. There was a verdict for the plaintiffs and a new trial granted, and on a second trial there was again a verdict for the plaintiffs.
This seems to be a hard action, judging from what appears on the record, but the law must have its way. Our courts hold that a worm fence is a part of the freehold and passes along with the land on which it is built. The agreement between Pinnell and the defendant Wallace in relation to the fence did not affect the plaintiffs. They would look to the title papers of Pinnell in order to ascertain what they were buying, and, if they showed that they were entitled to the fence by reason of its being part of the estate which they purchased, they could not be affected by any agreement to which they were not parties, and of which they had no notice. Wallace, the defendant, should have seen that his agreement with Pinnell was put upon the record in such a way as to be noticed. The jury found that the plaintiffs had no notice of the agreement, for, by an instruction given by the court, the case was made to turn on the fact whether the plaintiffs had notice of the agreement between Pinnell and the defendant.
The corners established by the original surveyors under the authority of the United States could not be altered, whether properly placed or not, and no error in placing them could be corrected by any survey made by individuals or by any surveyor deriving his authority from the laws of the state. This, it is conceived, is the idea conveyed by the *560instruction given by the court at its own instance, which, though not very happily expressed, could not have misled the jury, as it does not appear, that the fact the fence was on the land of the plaintiffs was contested on the trial. The other surveys were offered, at least those on the part of the defendant, to show the innocency of his intention in placing the fence where he did.
Affirmed ;
the other judges concur.