76 Ind. App. 469 | Ind. Ct. App. | 1921
Suit by appellant against appellees to quiet title to certain real estate. Appellees filed answer in denial, and appellee Ai J. Rich filed cross-complaint to quiet his title to the real estate in controversy. Trial resulted in a finding and decree in favor of cross-complainant.
The only error assigned is the action of the court in
On March 24, 1875, Jacob Shons, being the owner of a certain quarter section of real estate, conveyed the east half thereof to George Perry. On June 1, 1918, Perry conveyed the said east half to appellee Ai J. Rich. The title of the west half remained in Jacob Shons until his death. After his death, and on October 28, 1909, the heirs of Jacob Shons conveyed the west half to appellant.
This litigation involves the title to a strip of land comprising three and a fraction acres off of the west-side of the east half of the quarter section which was conveyed by Jacob Shons to George Perry on March 24, 1875. It appears from the evidence that at the time Jacob Shons conveyed to Perry the east half of the quarter section no survey was made, that the line dividing the east and west halves of the quarter section was not established by survey until shortly before the commencement of this suit, and that the only fence which in any way has ever separated any part of the tract sold to Perry, and which is now owned by appellee Ai J. Rich, from the remainder of the quarter section retained by Jacob Shons, is a rail fence built by Jacob Shons before he made the conveyance to Perry, and was therefore not built as a partition fence. This fence was located between one and two rods east of the line dividing the east and west halves of the quarter section, and extended north from the south line of the quarter section a distance of only forty-six rods. The fence was so located because that was the border line between the high and the low lands. Perry, after the east half of the quarter section was conveyed to him, rebuilt the fence at his own expense. Neither Jacob Shons nor any
It is conceded by appellant that the strip of land in controversy is a part of the east half of the quarter section, and is not described or included in her deed which calls for the “west half.” Appellant does not claim that entry upon the strip of land was under color of title, but claims title solely on the ground that for more than twenty years immediately prior to the commencement of this suit she and her immediate and remote grantors, under claim of ownership, were in actual, visible, notorious, exclusive, hostile and continuous possession.
The decision is sustained by the evidence.
Affirmed.