Walters v. Tucker

Wolf conveyed land described as the west 50 feet of a lot, with a house already on the conveyed portion, and later built a second house on the retained portion; Walters (plaintiff), successor to the conveyed portion, argued the boundary should be measured 50 feet at right angles from the original lot's west line, while Tucker (defendant), successor to the retained portion, argued the intent was 50 feet of road frontage measured diagonally, which would shrink Walters's actual lot width to about 42 feet and encroach on his driveway. The trial court heard extensive extrinsic evidence about surveying practice and the parties' historical use of the property and ruled for Tucker; Walters appealed.