Masonic Building Ass'n v. Gordon

Citations

• 88 Kan. 266
• 128 P. 394
• 1912 Kan. LEXIS 50

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Party Wall—Boundaries—Mutual Agreement. In an action to recover for the use of a party wall the answer alleged (1) payment in full for the half of the wall on defendant’s side, (2) that in violation of the contract providing for the erection . of the wall plaintiffs’ grantors had placed the wall six inches over the line and upon the defendant’s lot. The réply consisted of a general denial and a plea that the former owners of the adjoining properties had fixed the wall as the true boundary by mutual agreement. The court found generally for the plaintiffs. Held, that upon the issues of fact there was. sufficient evidence to support the judgment. -</p> <p>2. Instrument—Affecting Beal Estate—Record. A writing in the following language is held to be an instrument affecting real estate:</p> <p>“$200.00. , December 31, 1887.</p> <p>“Received of John Norton Two Hundred Dollars for the party wall agreed upon by and between W. S. and Lydia B. Arter and L. and Hattie Blackman, as per contract dated May 27, 1887, and recorded in book 135, page 546, of the records of Shawnee County, Kansas. Said John Norton now being the owner of the property described in said contract, title then in W. S. Arter. This receipt being in full for said wall as described in the above mentioned contract.</p> <p>H. M. Blackman.</p> <p>L. Blackman.”</p> <p>3. - Defective Acknowledgment—Record — Valid. Where such an instrument had been filed in the office of the register of deeds in the proper county for a period of ten years it is as valid, notwithstanding a defective acknowledgment, as though duly acknowledged in the first instance. (Gen. Stat. 1909, § 1685.)</p>