Wegge v. Madler

Boundaries of land: Streets: Deed construed: “Corner” of lot: Costs of party defending separately. 1. The grantee of a lot in a recorded plat takes title to the center 'of an adjoining street, subject to tbe public easement, even where tbe lot is described by metes and bounds extending to° tbe line of tbe street, altbougb without express -reference to such street, and also where tbe lot is described as bounded by tbe street. * 2. In a conveyance of part of a lot, described by metes and bounds, tbe expression “tbe northwest corner of” tbe lot is held to mean tbe point at tbe intersection of tbe south and east lines respectively of tbe two streets at tbe corner of tbe lot and not tbe point at tbe intersection of tbe center lines of such streets. 3. In ejectment, wber^ tbe sole heir of tbe common grantor of tbe parties was also brought in as a party and successfully defended by a separate attorney, she was entitled to recover full costs and disbursements, excluding such items as were common to both issues.

Apeeau from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Milwaukee county: WaeeeN D. TaeeaNt, Circuit Judge. Tbis is an action of ejectment. Tbe facts are undisputed, or found by tbe court, and are to tbe following effect: Ogden avenue runs east and west and is eighty feet wide. Yan Burén street is eighty feet wide, and crosses that avenue at right angles. The north side of lot 1, in block 137, abuts upon tbe south side of Ogden avenue, and the west end of that lot also abuts upon the east side of Yan Burén street. Adjoining that lot on the south side thereof is lot No. 2 in the same block, and that lot also abuts upon Yan Burén street on the west end thereof. Said lots were each a little over 127 feet long east and west, and a little over sixty feet wide north and south. At the times mentioned Julius G. 0. Kasten owned the portions of the two lots • here in question. On March 21, 1902, the said Kasten agreed in writing with one John 0. Kleist, acting for the plaintiff, to convey to him the parts of said lots described as commencing at a point fifty feet east of the northwest corner of said lot 1; thence east on the north line of said lot 1 to a point twenty-seven and one-half feet west of the northeast corner of said lot 1; thence south ninety feet; thence east to the east line of said lot 2; thence south to the southeast corner of said lot 2; thence west on the south line of said lot 2 to the east line of Ormsby’s land; thence north forty-five feet; thence west six feet; and thence north to the place of beginning. The strip of land twenty-seven and one-half feet wide off the east end of said lots was during the times herein mentioned the property of one Sonlander. In pursuance of that agreement the said Kasten on April 19, 1902, conveyed the same land therein described to the plaintiff. On May 12, 1902, said Kasten conveyed to the defendant Madler the parts of said lots described as commencing at the northwest corner of lot No. 1; running thence south seventy-five feet along the west line of said lots 1 and 2; thence fifty feet east, parallel to the north line of said lot 2, to a point which is seventy-five feet south of the north line of lot numbered 1; thence north, parallel to tbe west line of said lots 1 and 2, seventy-five feet, to a point in tbe north line of lot No. 1; tbence west, along tbe north line of said lot 1, fifty feet to tbe place of beginning. This action was commenced against Madler alone May 22, 1902, and to tbe complaint therein Madler, by Carroll & Oar-roll, bis attorneys therein, answered. Thereupon and on June J, 1902, tbe complaint was amended by making tbe said Julius O. 0. Hasten a party defendant. To such amended complaint therein tbe said Hasten by bis attorney, Otto H. Hansen, made answer. August 13, 1902, tbe said Hasten died intestate, leaving him surviving tbe defendant Alma Scheffer as bis sole heir at law. Thereupon and in January, 1903, a separate action of ejectment was commenced by this same plaintiff against tbe said Alma Scheffer and Alfred Scheffer, her husband, and they by their attorney, John E. Burke, made answer to tbe complaint therein. April 18, 1903, tbe two actions were duly consolidated. Upon tbe trial of tbe two actions thus consolidated a jury was waived, and at tbe close of tbe trial tbe court found in effect tbe facts stated, and upon such facts and tbe admitted facts reached tbe conclusion in effect that tbe title to tbe premises described in tbe deed to Madler was in him and superior to any claim or title thereto in tbe plaintiff, and that tbe plaintiff was forever barred from having or claiming any title under her said deed from said Hasten to tbe land so owned by tbe said Madler adverse to him, and that tbe defendants have their costs and disbursements therein to be taxed, and ordered judgment to be entered therein accordingly. Such judgment was duly entered July 3, 1905, dismissing tbe complaint upon tbe merits, and adjudging that Madler was entitled to tbe possession of tbe premises de scribed in bis deed, and that Madler recover from tbe plaintiff bis costs in tbe action taxed at $150.55, and that Alma and Alfred Scheffer have and recover from the plaintiff their costs in tbe action taxed at $56.22, and that executions issue to enforce sncb judgment. From sticb judgment and the whole thereof the plaintiff appeals. contended, inter alia, that where the corner of a lot or block or piece of -land, the occupied portion of which is bounded by two streets, or where the intersection of two streets, is named as the starting point in a description, this point will be the intersection of the center lines of such streets, unless the deed by apt, express language provides differently. Cox v.Freedley, 33 Pa. St. 124; Moody v. Palmer, 50 Cal. 31; Low v. Tibbetts, 72 Me. 92; Siueatman v. Bathriclc, 17 S. Dak. 138, 95 N. "VY. 422; Potter v. Boyce, 73 App. Div. 383, 77 N. Y. Supp. 24 (in effect overruling Holloway v. Delano, 18 N. Y. Supp. 700); Gas Light Go. v. B., W. & O. B. Go. 11 N. Y. Oiv. Proc. 239. See, also, Greer v. N. 7. G. & H. B. B. Go. 37 Hun, 346; In re Cathedral Parkway, 46 N. Y. Supp. 832, 834; Perrin v. N. 7. O. B. Go. 36 N. Y. 120; Putzel v. Van Brunt, 40 N. Y. Super. Ct. 501; Stevens v. New 7ork, 46 N. Y. Super. Ot. 274; Oxton v. Groves, 68 Me. 371; Dean v. Lowell, 135 Mass. 55, 60; Gould v. Pastern B. Go. 142 Mass. 85; Paul v. Garver, 26 Pa. St. 223, 226; Marsh v. Burt, 34 Vt. 289.