Crill v. Hudson

Decision Date21 March 1903
PartiesCRILL v. HUDSON
CourtArkansas 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:

"It is agreed that at the time of the original survey by the surveyors for the United States the fractional northeast quarter of section 18, in township 8 south, in range 3 west according to said survey and original plats and meander lines, contained 10.88 acres. That the same on its southeast side touched the water's edge of the Arkansas river. That since said date there has been added to the said tract of land by way of accretion, or reliction, 148.91 acres. * * *

"It is further agreed that said tract of land has at all times been deeded, sold and conveyed, and referred to and known by 'the northeast fraction quarter of section 18, township 8 south, range 3 west, containing 10.88 acres,' excepting in the deads hereinafter specifically mentioned in reference to other manners of describing said lands, and that under this description it has been assessed for taxation by the assessors of this county, and has been at all times so described in all matters pertaining to its taxation.

"It is further agreed between the parties to this action that one William H. Singleton was the owner and in possession of said tract of land in the year 1891, when the said lands were assessed for the taxes of that year, but that his actual possession or improvements were wholly on the accretion to the original tract, and at no point did they touch the original 10.88 acres. That the said lands were assessed for taxation for the year 1891 as 'the northeast fractional quarter of section 18, township 8 south, range 3 west, 10.88 acres,' and under this description were returned delinquent for the taxes for said year, duly advertised for sale, and sold on the 13th day of June, 1892, to Edgar J Crill for the amount of taxes, penalty and costs accrued and charged against it, amounting to the sum of $ 1.55, which sum included 25 cents charged by the collector for the certificate of purchase. That on or about the 15th day of June, 1894, and after the expiration of the two years from the 13th day of June, 1892, the date of the sale, the said lands being and remaining unredeemed from the sale, the said Edgar J. Crill went into possession under his purchase at tax sales, as hereinbefore set out, claiming thereunder the original improvements of the said William H. Singleton, and placed additional improvements on said tract of land, but at no point does or did his improvements touch the original tract of 10.88 acres inside the meander lines of the United States survey. That later, to-wit, on the 20th day of February, 1895, the said Edgar J. Crill duly conveyed to the plaintiff, Mary E. Crill, the said tract of land, describing it as 'northeast quarter of section 18, township 8 south range 3 west.' That since the date of said deed the plaintiff has been in continuous, adverse, open, notorious and forcible possession of the improvements theretofore occupied by her grantor, Edgar J. Crill, claiming under her said deed from him, and claiming the original tract of 10.88 acres and all accretions thereto under her said deed,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
64 cases
  • Fritz v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 4 January 1909
    ...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
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 22 June 1908
    ...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
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 21 June 1909
    ...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
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 21 October 1907
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT