Opinion
April 6, 1955 —
May 3, 1955.
APPEAL from a judgment of the county court of Chippewa county: ORRIN H. LARRABEE, Judge. Reversed.
For the appellants there was a brief by Ingolf E. Rasmus and John R. Frampton, both of Chippewa Falls, attorneys, and Bertie Bettenburg of St. Paul, Minnesota, of counsel, and oral argument by Mr. Frampton.
For the respondents there was a brief by Stafford, Pfiffner Stafford of Chippewa Falls, and oral argument by Robert F. Pfiffner.
This action was commenced by plaintiffs John Thornton, Rose Murphy, and Josephine Dumholt, owners of an unplatted parcel of land in the city of Chippewa Falls, against Harvey Loiselle and Eileen Loiselle, his wife, owners of an unplatted parcel immediately adjacent to and west of plaintiffs' land, to compel the defendants to remove a portion of their building claimed to extend over and onto the land of the plaintiffs. Trial was had to the court. Each side presented evidence of surveys indicating the location of the common boundary line between the properties owned by the parties. Plaintiffs' surveyor testified that defendants' building encroached upon plaintiffs' land to the extent of 2' 8 5/8" east of the boundary line at the northeast corner of defendants' parcel, and 23 5/8" east of the line at the southeast corner. The proof offered by defendants showed no encroachment, — the defendants' surveyor testifying that the building was 1 1/2" west of the boundary line. The court held that neither of these surveys was correct, and announced that it was unable to determine from the surveys whether an encroachment existed.
The descriptions of plaintiffs' land and defendants' land commence at a common starting point on a continuation of the line between two lots in platted land situated in the vicinity of the lands of the parties. The reference line is a north-south line between platted lots 12 and 13, block 27, in Allen's Addition to the city of Chippewa. Falls.
The surveyors disagreed as to the location of the north terminus of the line between lots 12 and 13, block 27, Allen's Addition. The court rejected the surveys of both surveyors and proceeded itself to establish the location of that line. The location of the line determined upon by the court differed from those found by the surveyors. No line such as determined by the court had previously been marked on the ground or used by the surveyors who testified. Neither party to the action claim that a line such as found by the court existed or was referred to in any title instrument. The court by judgment directed a new survey of the description, and left open the question of encroachment for determination after the new survey had been completed. The defendants appealed from the judgment.
The burden of proof to establish the encroachment rested on the plaintiffs. After both sides had rested their case, the court rendered its decision wherein it said:
"I have changed both surveys, the one which Mr. Tilbury used and the one which Mr. Loken used, neither one of them I have held is correct. In other words, Mr. Loken's was located at exactly 132 feet. I have held it is not correct because of the shortage and the north line which I have to compensate for. There is no evidence at all of the accuracy of that stake. Mr. Cray who has worked in there doesn't know who put it in or when it was put in or anything or how long it had been there. There is nothing I can tie it to to make it accurate. The ground itself discloses it is not accurate, placed too far east 95/100 of a foot."
When this statement had been made by the court the plaintiffs requested a finding that the building encroaches on plaintiffs' property. The court said:
"I don't know whether it encroaches. I think you should have that description laid down on the ground with a supplement record and a separate hearing to determine then whether or not it encroaches so that we know exactly what we are talking about. If you are going to have an encroachment it has to be accurate. You may make a separate, supplemental report and give me the description of the encroachment, if any at that time and renew your motion on notice to the other party for judgment."
The rule in this type of case is identical with that in an ejectment action. In Chicago Club of Lake Geneva v. Ryan (1931), 203 Wis. 272, 279, 234 N.W. 488, it was said that:
"The location of a boundary line or corner is a fact to be proved, and the plaintiff in an ejectment action has the burden of proof and must recover, if at all, on the strength of his title. He cannot depend on the weakness or indefiniteness of the opposing claim."
The court was bound to have rendered a determination upon the basis of the evidence in the record. It exceeded its jurisdiction when ordering a new survey upon the description and in directing the presentation of further evidence with respect thereto. Plaintiffs' survey had shown an encroachment. However, that survey was rejected by the court. There was no other testimony to establish encroachment. In view of the court's inability to accept plaintiffs' evidence of survey after each side had rested its case, the court had no choice other than to order that the plaintiffs' cause of action be dismissed for failure of proof.
By the Court. — Judgment reversed, with directions that it be set aside and judgment entered dismissing plaintiffs' complaint upon the merits.