Alley v. Martin, 5--5449
| Decision Date | 01 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--5449,5--5449 |
| Citation | 250 Ark. 74,464 S.W.2d 591 |
| Parties | Howell ALLEY and Louella Alley Hastings, Appellants, v. Joe MARTIN, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Elbert S. Johnson, Blytheville, for appellants.
Gardner & Steinsiek, Blytheville, for appellee.
This is a boundary line dispute between adjoining landowners. Appellee, who owns the southern or 'lower' tract, brought suit in equity to enjoin appellants, owners of the northern or 'upper' tract, from trespassing upon a 33-foot-wide strip of land which runs along and inside of the southern edge of the upper tract. Appellee claims ownership of this strip by adverse possession, whereas appellants claim it as a part of their upper tract by warranty deed. From a decree apportioning the strip of land between the parties and enjoining further trespass, appellants bring this appeal. For reversal appellants contend that the decree is contrary to the law and the evidence and that the court erred in refusing the appellants' motion for a new trial. Basically, the appellants contend for reversal that the findings of the chancellor are against the preponderance of the evidence. We cannot agree.
About 45 years prior to this action, the two tracts constituted a single parcel. The then owner excavated a drainage ditch traversing, in an east-to-west direction, the half-mile width of that parcel. Thereafter, upon purchasing the upper tract in 1945, appellants' predecessor in title caused a survey to be made which revealed that the boundary of the upper tract extended from approximately 25 to 30 feet south of the drainage ditch. Since the severed southern strip of this upper tract was not convenient to farm, it had been, prior to this 1945 purchase, converted into a utility roadway servicing both the upper and lower tracts. Appellants continued, as did their predecessor in title, to use the strip for this purpose.
Appellee purchased the lower tract in 1969, apparently under the misconception that its northern boundary extended to the drainage ditch. He instructed his tenant farmer to plow up the roadway and to plant crops up to the ditch. Appellants thereupon caused another survey to be made which reestablished their southern boundary line as extending from 25 feet beyond the drainage ditch at one end to 33 feet beyond the ditch at the other. Appellants then disked up appellee's crop to this survey line. Appellee secured a quitclaim deed, executed by his two immediate predecessors in title, which described the lower tract as extending northward to the center of the ditch. He then instituted the present action.
Testimony established, and appellants admit, that the lower tract had, since at least 1946, been farmed up to the roadway. However, appellants contended, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanders v. Jackson
...we defer to the judgment of the chancellor who was in a superior position to determine the credibility of the witnesses. Alley v. Martin, 250 Ark. 74, 464 S.W.2d 591; Cochran v. People's Exchange Bank, 176 Ark. 830, 4 S.W.2d 515; Walt v. Phillips, 166 Ark. 163, 266 S.W. 71. The chancellor w......
-
Rector-Phillips-Morse, Inc. v. Huntsman Farms, Inc., RECTOR-PHILLIPS-MORS
...will affirm the action of the trial court when that court's action is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Alley v. Martin, 250 Ark. 74, 464 S.W.2d 591 (1971); Summers v. Hook, 243 Ark. 368, 419 S.W.2d 810 (1977). Moreover, where credibility as between interested parties in an acti......
-
Wisdom v. Thomas
...evenly poised, we would defer to the judgment of the chancellor, who is in better position to determine credibility. Alley v. Martin, 250 Ark. 74, 464 S.W.2d 591 (1971). Appellants insist that the granting of fifteen feet by Dority was conditioned that the landowners on the opposite side gi......