Obermeyer v. Idohl

278 P.2d 188, 76 Idaho 103, 1954 Ida. LEXIS 275
CourtIdaho Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 22, 1954
DocketNo. 8140
StatusPublished

This text of 278 P.2d 188 (Obermeyer v. Idohl) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Obermeyer v. Idohl, 278 P.2d 188, 76 Idaho 103, 1954 Ida. LEXIS 275 (Idaho 1954).

Opinion

GIVENS, Justice.

April 10, 1932 the Grimes Pass Power Company was and, for some time prior thereto, had been in possession and the unquestioned owner of certain real property which included in the metes and bounds description thereof in the mesne conveyances by which said Company had acquired title thereto, the house and lot in question herein.

On that day the Company’s manager executed the following instrument:

“Statement

“Grimes Pass, Idaho

“April 10, 1932

“Sold To:

“Homer Idohl Grimes Pass Idaho

“One fenced lot, size 70ft. by 90ft., located in the south east corner of the Grimes Pass Power Co. property at Grimes Pass Idaho. This includes one four room house and woodshed.

“Received payment in full by labor to the amount of $100.00.

“Grimes Pass Power Co.

“By s/ Albert H. Whitten

“Manager”

“State of Idaho,

“County of Ada, SS'

“On this 8th day of December, 1950, before me, a notary public in and for [105]*105said County and State, personally appeared Albert H. Whitten, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. “In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written.

“s/ Catherine L. Sivey

“Notary Public for Idaho

Residence: Boise, Idaho”

“Dfts. Ex. H.

Respondents immediately entered into and have at all times since then remained in possession thereof, either personally or by renters. Thereafter, successive deeds by metes and bounds descriptions, including and not excluding or excepting the house and lot, were executed by the Grimes Pass Power Company and succeeding grantors and grantees culminating in a quitclaim deed No. 54870, dated June 1, 1948, to appellants and recorded in Book 52 of Deeds, page 346, in the office of the Recorder of Boise County.

Upon refusal of respondents to deliver possession in 1951 to appellants of the disputed westerly portions and the house and lot, they filed suit herein to quiet title thereto July 30, 1953. Judgment for respondents as owners by adverse possession under color of title of said portions and the house and lot, was rendered; Hence, this appeal.

Appellants’ assignments of error challenge the accuracy and appositeness of the findings and the sufficiency of the evidence to support them.

Respondents concededly own Lots 5 and 6 (and Lots 7 and 8, except a school house lot, not involved herein) in Section 10, Township 8 North, Range 5 East, B.M. The property claimed by appellants, described by metes and bounds, is in the northeast corner of Lot 5 and the northwest corner of Lot 6, roughly triangular in shape, with the disputed house and lot in the extreme eastern point of this triangular area. The dispute over the western, irregular, joint line arose because respondents and Grimes Pass Power Company, in reconstructing the fence in 1942 purportedly along this line, used trees as posts, which did not in all instances make the line coincide with the surveyed metes and bounds; consequently, the present fence line, hatched on Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4, reproduced herewith, intermittently extends into the tracts of the respective parties, as described in the above deeds, the plain line on the Exhibit. The court found this fence line as now constructed was and is the agreed, and hence, true, boundary line and that the defendants have paid the taxes on their portion of the land thereby bounded in Lot 5 since 1942.

[106]

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

Related

Calkins v. Kousouros
237 P.2d 1053 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1951)
Mulder v. Stands
225 P.2d 463 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1950)
Stickel v. Carter
117 P.2d 477 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1941)
Fountain v. Lewiston National Bank
83 P. 505 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1905)
Coe v. Sloan
100 P. 354 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1909)
Boise City v. Wilkinson
102 P. 148 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1909)
Bayhouse v. Urquides
105 P. 1066 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1909)
Crandall v. Goss
167 P. 1025 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
278 P.2d 188, 76 Idaho 103, 1954 Ida. LEXIS 275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obermeyer-v-idohl-idaho-1954.