Home/Supreme Court of Minnesota/Kleven v. Gunderson

Kleven v. Gunderson

104 N.W. 4, 95 Minn. 246, 1905 Minn. LEXIS 665
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedJune 23, 1905
DocketNos. 14,119—(5)
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 104 N.W. 4 (Kleven v. Gunderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kleven v. Gunderson, 104 N.W. 4, 95 Minn. 246, 1905 Minn. LEXIS 665 (Mich. 1905).

Opinion

JAGGARD, J.

This is an action of ejectment to recover possession of a strip of land along the north line of defendant’s and appellant’s land, containing about four acres. The plaintiff and respondent is the owner of the northeast % of the southeast and the defendant the owner of the southeast ¿4 of the southeast all in section 31, township 119, range 42. The boundary line between the lands of the parties depends upon the location of the lost quarter corner on the east line of section 31. [248]*248Part of Lac qui Parle lies within the northeast corner of this township. That part of the township is thereby made fractional. It is conceded that the following corners are well known and well marked corners of the United States government survey, to wit, the northwest corner; the southwest corner; the quarter corner on the south side of section 31; that the quarter corner on the west side of the section is midway between the northwest and the southwest corners thereof; that the quarter corner on the east side of the section, the corner in dispute, was established and marked by government surveyors, and that its location is lost; and that the meander corner on the north end of the east section line, if ever marked, is destroyed, and its location lost. It is conceded also that the line between the lands of the plaintiff and defendant is a straight line drawn from a point midway between the southeast corner of the section and the quarter corner on the east side and a point on the west side of the section midway between the southwest corner and the quarter corner on the west side thereof.

The field notes of the government survey of the east line of said section 31 show that it was run by commencing at the southeast corner thereof running north.

Var. 12 degrees 15 minutes East, 40 [chains] set post in mound with pits for % section corner, 46.30 [chains] intersect Lac qui Parle and set post in mound with pits for meander corner.

These field notes show the whole length of the line to Lac qui Parle to be 46.30 chains, while the actual length thereof according to the defendant’s survey is 50.85 chains.

Two. surveys were made by the parties to this action; one for the defendant by Woodward, and the other for the plaintiff by Moyer. Moyer re-established the quarter corner at forty chains from the southeast corner of said section and the lost meander corner by the distance and inferential quantity call, and in doing so ignored the call in the field notes “intersect Lac qui Parle,” etc. Woodward — a copy of whose survey is here shown — according to his own testimony, measured the length of the line, and found that the distance call “46.30” and the natural object call “intersect Lac qui Parle” did not agree.

[249]*249

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Moscrip v. Webster Lumber Co.
204 N.W. 326 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1925)
Grandt v. Town of Pokegama
204 N.W. 817 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1925)
Propper v. Wohlwend
112 N.W. 967 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 N.W. 4, 95 Minn. 246, 1905 Minn. LEXIS 665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kleven-v-gunderson-minn-1905.