Francois v. Maloney

Citations

• 56 Ill. 399

Syllabus

<p>1. Boundary line between adjacent lots — mistake in respect thereto — estoppel. The owner of a lot of ground brought ejectment against the owner of an adjoining lot, to recover a portion of the land on which the house of the latter stood. There was evidence that, at the time the defendant built his house, about three years before the suit was brought, the plaintiff pointed out to him what he considered the line between the lots, and assisted in taking down a fence. But the plaintiff denied all knowledge as to the line: Held, under the circumstances, if the plaintiff through mistake thus induced the defendant to build to a wrong line, he was not thereby estopped from a recovery to the true line, his mere acquiescence in such practical location for so short a time not being sufficient to bar the action, and the evidence too uncertain and contradictory to prove an express agreement.</p> <p>3. Same—deficiency in quantity — how apportioned,. The owner of a parcel of land made a plat of it into lots, and conveyed the same to different purchasers, the deeds describing the lots only by numbers. It was afterward ascertained that the frontage of the whole tract was less than was originally supposed and as shown by the plat: Held, in determining the true boundary line between the different lots, the original monuments being gone, and it was necessary to refer to the plat for the ascertainment of the dimensions of the lots, the deficiency in the frontage should be apportioned pro rata between them.</p>