Home/South Dakota Supreme Court/Thomas v. Mettel

Thomas v. Mettel

168 N.W. 651, 41 S.D. 322, 1918 S.D. LEXIS 129
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 22, 1918
DocketFile No. 4104
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 168 N.W. 651 (Thomas v. Mettel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Thomas v. Mettel, 168 N.W. 651, 41 S.D. 322, 1918 S.D. LEXIS 129 (S.D. 1918).

Opinion

McCOY, J.

Plaintiff, claiming to ¡be the owner in fee of the southwest quarter of section 29, township 104, north of range 65, in Aurora county, brought this action for the recovery of the possession of said premises from defendant,-to determine the adverse claims of the defendant, to have adjudged that the claim of defendant thereto is inferior and' invalid as against the title of plaintiff, and that defendant and all persons claiming under him be forever enjoined and restrained from thereafter claiming or asserting any right, title, or -interest in or to said lands adverse to plaintiff. The defendant by way of answer alleged that he is the owner and in the actual possession of the southeast quarter' of section 30, township 104, north of range 65, in Aurora county, and that defendant and his grantors have had actual possession of said premises and have improved the same and paid the taxes thereon for more than ten years prior to- the commencement of this action, and that said described premises, the said southeast of said section 30, is the identical land which plaintiff claims to he the owner of as the squthwest of said section 29. Prom these pleadings it will be observed that the controversy between these parties is whether or not the said quarter section of land is in fact the southwest of 29 or the southeast of 30 in said township and range.

[1] By some error in the original survey thereof said township 104 — 65 is not 6 miles square. It is 6 miles north and south and about 5y2 miles east and west. In Mason v. Braught, 33 S. D. 559, 146 N. W. 687, and Neumeyer v. Palmer, 39 S. D. 447, 164 N. W. 1025, the same error as to survey, was involved. The decisions in these cases involve purely questions of, fact based on the evidence appearing in the record in each particular case, and it does not necessarily follow that the result should be the same in every case involving this erroneous survey, as each case must be determined only in the light of the evidence peculiar to that particular case. The following’plat of township 104 — 65, based upon the original governm'ent, survey, -and evidence - preserved in the record, will serve to illustrate the vital points in the controversy, the dots at section corners and along section lines representing original government mounds still existing, as shown by the evidence.

[325]*325

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

Related

Fox v. Burden
1999 SD 154 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1999)
Nizielski v. Tvinnereim
453 N.W.2d 831 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1990)
Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Strain
432 N.W.2d 259 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1988)
Skoglund v. Staab
312 N.W.2d 29 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1981)
Anderson v. Whipple
227 P.2d 351 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1951)
Dailey v. Ryan
21 N.W.2d 61 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1945)
Harlan v. Sparks
125 F.2d 502 (Tenth Circuit, 1942)
Mathias v. State Farmers' Mutual Hail Insurance
168 N.W. 664 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
168 N.W. 651, 41 S.D. 322, 1918 S.D. LEXIS 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-mettel-sd-1918.