Weringer v. Rutledge

LAWLOR, J.

This is an action in ejectment brought by the plaintiff against the defendant in which the controversy was over a disputed boundary line. The case was tried by jury, a verdict rendered in favor of defendant, and judgment

[567]

entered accordingly. Thereafter the plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was granted, and the defendant appeals.

The defendant answered plaintiff’s complaint, denying the allegations thereof, and for further defense alleged that the predecessor in title of plaintiff, and the defendant, being coterminous owners, agreed upon a boundary between their adjoining lands. In his cross-complaint the defendant alleged that he and his predecessors in interest had been in the actual, exclusive, and adverse possession of the land in question for more than five years prior to the commencement of the action, and that they had paid all taxes thereon.

Mary A. Rutledge conveyed by deed to Eugenia M. Hooper, on May 30, 1893, a tract of land, being a portion of the land now in dispute, upon the southern boundary 'of which there was constructed by Eugenia M. Hooper a wooden building thirty-two feet long by twenty-two feet wide, wherein has been conducted ever since a general store, a portion thereof being used for many years as a United States postoffice. During 1893 a well was sunk to obtain water for domestic purposes, the well from that time having been in continual use. The defendant téstified that in 1895 or 1896 he went into possession of the land and continued in possession until the commencement of this action. The deed conveying the land from Eugenia M. Hooper to the defendant bears date of February 7, 1898.

The plaintiff alleges that the disputed boundary line runs about one foot and three inches north of the northeast comer of the store, directly east and west, which puts the store and well upon the strip of land in controversy. The defendant alleges that the true line runs several feet south of the store, and that the disputed line was established by him and his coterminous owner in 1896 or 1897 approximately thirty-eight feet from where plaintiff claims it runs.