Bayles v. Daugherty
Decision Date | 02 December 1905 |
Citation | 91 S.W. 304,77 Ark. 201 |
Parties | BAYLES v. DAUGHERTY |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Court; A. G. SETTLES, Special Judge reversed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
Action in ejectment by J. W. Daugherty against Thomas Bayles and others to recover possession of the tract of land described in the complaint. The plaintiff recovered judgment below, and the defendants appealed.
Reversed and remanded.
F. G Taylor and Basil Baker, for appellants.
1. Possession for the statutory period under claim of ownership hostile and adverse confers title, even though the claim of title originated in a mistake as to boundaries. 59 Ark. 626; 69 Ala. 332; 90 Ala. 354; 82 Ill. 898; 90 Ind. 94; 31 Iowa 138; 148 Mass. 298; 31 Minn. 81; 108 Mo. 311; 79 Tex. 310; 43 Cal. 251; 51 Me. 584; 72 Me. 331; 71 Mich. 520; 24 N.J.Eq 181. Actual possession, when not held by permission, is an open and hostile declaration of title. 47 Ark. 431; 43 Ark. 312; 50 Ark. 53; 67 Ark. 84. Appellee is bound by his acquiescence in the survey for a period of more than seven years. 87 S.W. 649; 23 Ark. 604; 51 Ark. 491; 62 Ark. 7; 36 S.W. 184; 97 N.W. 320; 98 N.W. 286. Instructions 2, 4, and 6 were misleading and contradictory. 5 Ark. 651; 18 Ark. 520; 30 Ark. 520; 55 Ark. 393; 59 Ark. 98; 63 Ark. 65; 65 Ark. 98;Ib. 64; 51 Ark. 88; 66 Ark. 233; 70 Ark. 79.
W. J. Lamb, for appellee.
MCCULLOCH, J., (after stating the facts.)
This is an action between the respective owners of the two co-terminous tracts of land. Both sides claim that the strip in controversy, about 30 rods wide, is within the boundaries of their respective tracts of land, to which they have undisputed title. The defendants also claim title to the disputed strip by adverse possession for more than seven years.
It appears from the evidence that in the year 1889 the boundary line between the two tracts was surveyed by the county surveyor of Mississippi County, and the line was established by him according to the present claim of the defendants, and that their grantor, who then owned the lands now held by them, moved his fence out to that line, and that he and they have continuously occupied it up to that line. Defendant's grantor testified that he moved his fence out to this line, believing it to be the correct boundary, and occupied up to it with intention of holding the land as his own.
The testimony is conflicting as to the correct location of the boundary, and the jury found in favor of the plaintiff upon that issue.
The court gave the following instructions over the objection of defendants:
Both of these instructions were incorrect, and should not have been given. From them the jury might have understood, and doubtless did understand, that if defendants grantor, at the time he took possession of the disputed strip of land, labored under a mistake as to the true boundary, and had no intention of taking that which was not his own, the plea of adverse possession could not be sustained, even though he intended to hold the strip as his own. This is not the law. The question of the good or bad faith of the transaction, or the intention of the party taking possession of land, is not material, provided the intention is to take and hold possession adversely. If the intention is to hold adversely, the statute runs, regardless of any mistake as to boundary or title. If the holding be not hostile, but in subordination to the rights of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilson v. Storthz
...have been "actual notice, or notorious acts of an unequivocal character." 99 Ark. 451; 109 Ark. 281; 55 Ark. 109; 69 Ark. 95; 80 Ark. 444; 77 Ark. 201; Ark. 149; 102 Ark. 611; 99 Ark. 84. A deed to an undivided interest will not be color of title so as to support constructive possession. 73......
-
Lowe v. Hart
...to know which instruction should guide them or to know which one they followed. 61 L. R. A. 337; 8 L. R. A. 494; 65 Ark. 64; 87 Ark. 364; 77 Ark. 201; Ark. 111. The rule that all instructions given must be considered together cannot be invoked to cure the error in an instruction which is wr......
-
Advocat, Inc. v. Sauer
...S.W. 396), contributory negligence, (Natural Gas & Fuel Co. v. Lyles, 174 Ark. 146, 294 S.W. 395), adverse possession, (Bayles v. Daugherty, 77 Ark. 201, 91 S.W. 304), and The purpose of instructions is to inform the jury of the legal principles applicable to the facts presented, and furnis......
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Rogers
... ... v. Carter, ... 76 Ark. 69, 88 S.W. 597; St. Louis, I. M. & S ... Ry. Co. v. Hitt, 76 Ark. 224, 88 S.W. 911; ... Bayles v. Daugherty, 77 Ark. 201, 91 S.W ... 304; White River L. & W. Ry. Co. v. Star R. & L ... Co., 77 Ark. 128, 91 S.W. 14; Merchants' Fire ... ...