Bissell v. Fletcher

• Decision Date: 27 May 1886
• Citation: 28 N.W. 303,19 Neb. 725
• Parties: BISSELL v. FLETCHER.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

19 Neb. 725

28 N.W. 303

BISSELL

v.FLETCHER.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

May 27, 1886.

Error from Harlan county.

John Dawson, for plaintiff.

C. C. Flansburg, for defendant.

MAXWELL, C. J.

This is an action of ejectment, brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, to recover possession of certain lands which the plaintiff claims belongs to lot 3, in section 31, township 2 N., range 18 W., in Harlan county. On the trial of the cause the court below found the issues in favor of the defendant, and dismissed the action.

There is no dispute about the essential facts in the case, and they are as follows: The plaintiff is the owner of lot 3, in section 31, township 2 N., range 18 W., and is entitled to, and is in possession of, the same, except as hereinafter stated. This lot, as shown by the plat and patent introduced in evidence, contains 52.60 acres. The plat shows that the south-west corner of the lot extends to the north channel of the Republican river, and there is some testimony tending to show a meander line between the river and the south line of said tract. The defendant is the owner of lots 6 and 7 in said section, and was the owner thereof at the commencement of this action. These lots lie south of lot 3, and, in fact, between it and the river as it flows at present. The contention of the plaintiff is that lot 3 extends to the river; and, notwithstanding the fact that lot 3 contains all the land the plaintiff purchased and paid for, and the effect of the extension of the line would be to give him about 117 acres of land to which he seems to have no equitable right, still he contends the law declares the land to be his. It is also shown that lots 4 and 5 in said section, if the plaintiff is entitled to recover, would also be extended to the river, and absorb a considerable portion of the tract that the plaintiff claims.

There is paucity of testimony as to the character of the channel of the river, along which the meander lines are run. Whether in fact the river flowed there at the time the original surveys were made, in 1865 and 1869, is not proved. The testimony tends to show that the river at the present time flows about three-quarters of a mile south of lot 3. As to when this change of the channel took place there is no proof. It is not claimed, however, nor is there any proof, that lots 6 and 7 are an accretion to lot 3. The case, therefore, is similar in most respects to that of Lammers v. Nissen, 4 Neb. 245, which was...