Gusheroski v. Lewis
Decision Date | 02 April 1946 |
Docket Number | 4811 |
Citation | 167 P.2d 390,64 Ariz. 192 |
Parties | GUSHEROSKI et ux. v. LEWIS et ux |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Maricopa County; Howard C. Speakman Judge.
Judgment affirmed.
H. M Van Denburgh and Kramer, Morrison, Roche & Perry, all of Phoenix, for appellants.
Hess Seaman, of Phoenix, for appellees.
Stanford Chief Justice. La Prade and Morgan, JJ., concur.
Appellants were the owners of Tract F consisting approximately of five acres and appellees were the owners of Tract G being of similar size. The land lay side by side, the appellants' property being north of appellees' five acres. The lands are on North Central Avenue, North of Phoenix near the Arizona Canal. Complaint was filed in the superior court by appellees alleging a controversy between the two owners over a strip of land lying between the two tracts and asking for a restraining order, temporary and permanent, preventing appellants from interfering with appellees or their employees while going upon the land to cultivate and irrigate same, and for a declaration of an easement. There is a vacant piece of land between the two tracts, but there is no boundary line or fence maintained between the two tracts and in the cultivation of the north row of citrus on Tract G, belonging to the appellees, they had for over ten years past driven their cultivating equipment on the southern portion of Tract F. This has been done in connection with both cultivation and irrigation of the north row of citrus owned by appellees.
A survey of Tract F established that the recorded plat was substantially correct. The strip over which appellees were given perpetual easement in Tract F is a wedge shaped piece of land approximately one foot in width at one end and seven feet at the other and about one quarter mile in length. The evidence further disclosed that it was impossible for each of the parties to cultivate their trees without encroaching on each other's property at the time the machinery was turned around. It was also made to appear that appellees and their predecessors in interest, during a period in excess of 29 years, and during a period in excess of 17 1/2 years of actual ownership by the appellee Adah I. Lewis, have been cultivating, using and enjoying the disputed ground continuously, openly, notoriously and without interruption, either verbal or physical, under claim of right inconsistent with and hostile to the claim of all others. While no fence existed between the properties, after each cultivation a ridge or embankment was constructed and reconstructed all through the years, keeping appellees' irrigation water off of appellants' land, and appellants' irrigation water off of appellees' ground; and when appellants' predecessors in interest cultivated and irrigated the area south of their south row of trees and in such cultivation and irrigation broke down said ridge or embankment, they, in turn, reconstructed same, it being accepted and acquiesced in by all parties in interest during all of said time that each owner had the right to so destroy and reconstruct said embankment between said two tracts of land for the necessary and proper cultivation of their respective tracts of land.
The appellee Mrs. Lewis (formerly Mrs. Zimmer) testified that she and Mr. Zimmer bought their tract of land in 1927; that they looked at the tract G in 1926 prior to purchase from a Mr. Nelson and his wife, then the owners. She testified that the following conversation occurred while looking over the land:
Mrs. Lewis further testified:
The court's judgment subjected each of the tracts to an easement in favor of each in so far as it was necessary to encroach on each tract for the purpose of effecting the cultivation as had been established by the use.
From this judgment the appellants have appealed and have assigned the following as error:
Sections 29-103 and 29-107, A.C.A.1939 are the sections of our code involved in this action. We quote from each:
These cases are submitted by appellants supporting their claims: Mosher v. Arizona Packing Co., 25 Ariz. 473, 219 P. 232; Spillsbury v. School Dist. No. 19, 37 Ariz. 43, 288 P. 1027; Ferguson v. Standley, 89 Mont. 489, 300 P. 245; Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Crockett Land & Cattle Co., 70 Cal.App. 283, 233 P. 370; Lyons v. Schwartz, 40 Cal.App.2d 60, 104 P.2d 383.
From the case of Mosher v. Arizona Packing Co., supra, we quote [25 Ariz. 473, 219 P. 233]:
The following paragraph is taken from Spillsbury v. School Dist. No. 19, supra [37 Ariz. 43, 288 P. 1028]:
* * *"
Appellants maintain that the testimony of witnesses show that no claim of right inconsistent with and hostile to them has ever...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation Dist. No. 1 v. Warford
... ... Curtis v. Southern Pac. Co., 39 ... Ariz. 570, 8 P.2d 1078; Boyd v. Atchison, T. S. F. Ry ... Co., 39 Ariz. 154, 4 P.2d 670; Gusheroski v ... Lewis, 64 Ariz. 192, 167 P.2d 390; LaRue v ... Kosich, 66 Ariz. 299, 187 P.2d 642 ... Giving ... the District the most ... ...
-
Spaulding v. Pouliot, 2 CA-CV 2007-0108.
...not with the implied permission of [the owner]." The court recognized, however, that an earlier supreme court case, Gusheroski v. Lewis, 64 Ariz. 192, 167 P.2d 390 (1946), had adopted the opposite presumption. But, because LaRue was decided after Gusheroski and "has never been overruled," t......
-
Ammer v. Arizona Water Co.
...a specific purpose. Etz v. Mamerow, 72 Ariz. 228, 233 P.2d 442 (1951). Such a right may be created by prescription. Gusheroski v. Lewis, 64 Ariz. 192, 167 P.2d 390 (1946). Although prescription and adverse possession are not identical theories, the rules of law that govern the acquisition o......
-
Overson v. Cowley, 1
...cannot be accidental, casual, secret, or permissive. (Citation omitted). 102 Ariz. at 39, 424 P.2d at 167. Cf. Gusheroski v. Lewis, 64 Ariz. 192, 197, 167 P.2d 390, 393 (1946) (adverse possession must be "physically interrupted so that it cannot be held to be continuous"); Gospel Echos Chap......