Crill v. Hudson
Decision Date | 21 March 1903 |
Parties | CRILL v. HUDSON |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Arkansas Circuit Court, GEORGE M. CHAPLINE, Judge.
Reversed.
Crill and wife sued Hudson for trespass for cutting timber from the northeast fractional quarter of section 18, township 8 south range 3 west, claiming title under a tax sale and by adverse possession Hudson in his answer denied the validity of the tax sale and by adverse possession.
The case was dismissed, and plaintiffs appealed.
The northeast quarter of section 18, township 8 south, range 3 west, in Arkansas county, by the original surveys, only contained 10.88 acres. It bordered on the Arkansas river. The river after the original survey receded, and formed by acceration 148.91 acres to the original tract.
The land was assessed for taxation for the year 1891 as "the northeast fractional quarter of section 18, township 8 south range 3 west, 10.88 acres." Under this description it was returned delinquent, and in 1892 was sold to E. J. Crill. It was not redeemed, and in 1894 E. J. Crill entered into possession of an improvement upon the acceration, and made other improvements thereto. He held possession until February, 1895, when he conveyed the land to his wife, Mary E. Crill, under description of "the northeast quarter section 18, township 8 south, range 3 west." Mrs. Crill and her husband thereafter held continuous possession open and adverse to all persons, so far as possession of the accretion under the purchases gave them possession, but was not otherwise in possession of the original tract--that is they had no improvements thereon. No one else claimed any possession. In April, 1898, and thereafter, J. A. Hudson, the appellee, entered upon the original tract and cut a large amount of timber therefrom.
This suit was commenced October 25, 1899. The case was submitted to the court upon the following agreement of facts:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fritz v. State
...7 Wall. 270; Rev. Stat. U.S. §§ 2476, 2478; 1 Lester's Land Laws, 714; 134 U.S. 178; 140 U.S. 414; 190 U.S. 452; 109 F. 354; 69 Ark. 39; 71 Ark. 390; 76 Ark. 44; Gould on Waters, § 76. act of Congress of September 28, 1850, vested title in the State to all the swamp and overflowed lands in ......
-
Little v. Williams
...the United States to its bed was that of a riparian proprietor, which passed with its patent and every subsequent conveyance. 69 Ark. 34; 71 Ark. 390; 190 U.S. 508; Gould Waters, §§ 195, 196. Meander lines are not lines of boundary. 2 Farnham on Waters, 1464; Gould on Waters, § 76; 190 U.S.......
-
Johnson v. Elder
...whole land. Ledbetter v. Fitzgerald, 1 Ark. 448; Logan v. Jelks, 34 Ark. 547; Sparks v. Farris, 71 Ark. 117, 71 S.W. 255; Crill v. Hudson, 71 Ark. 390, 74 S.W. 299; Boynton v. Ashabranner, 75 Ark. 514, S.W. 568; Rucker v. Dixon, 78 Ark. 99, 93 S.W. 750; Connerly v. Dickinson, 81 Ark. 258, 9......
-
Chicot Lumber Company v. Dardell
...perfects title. 98 Ala. 181; 56 Ala. 449; 90 Mich. 50. Possession of part under color of title is possession of the whole. 80 Ark. 435; 71 Ark. 390; 75 395: 78 Ark. 99; 18 Ill. 539. See also, 75 Ill. 51; 89. Ill. 183; 18 Neb. 619; 20 Mich. 384; 47 Tex. 529. Damages were not assessed for the......