Morgan v. Downs, 5--4688
| Decision Date | 14 October 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--4688,5--4688 |
| Citation | 432 S.W.2d 454,245 Ark. 328 |
| Parties | Chester L. MORGAN et al., Appellants, v. Paul DOWNS, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Sullivan & Causbie, Hardy, for appellants.
Murphy & Arnold and David Blair, Batesville, for appellee.
This suit was brought by the appellants, Chester and Lorene Morgan, to quiet their title to a 440-acre tract of land in Sharp county. The defendant, Paul Downs, asserted title to the land by adverse possession. The chancellor entered a decree for the defendant upon a finding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their title by a preponderance of the evidence.
From the abstracts and briefs we are unable to say with confidence that the chancellor was right in holding that the Morgans failed to prove their record title. It is our rule, however, that on trial de novo a chancery decree will be affirmed if it appears to be correct upon the record as a whole, even though the chancellor may have given the wrong reason for his conclusion. Culberhouse v. Hawthorne, 107 Ark. 462, 156 S.W. 421 (1913). Under that rule the decree must be affirmed, because the appellee's proof established his title by adverse possession. Although it is true, as the appellants insist, that Downs did not prove color of title to the entire 440 acres, that fact is immaterial if he established his actual adverse possession of the property for a period of seven years or more. Ferguson v. Peden, 33 Ark. 150 (1878). Where there is actual physical possession of the property for the statutory period, color of title is not required for the investiture of title.
Chester Morgan admitted on the witness stand that he had not had possession of the land in any way; so the question is whether Downs's proof sufficiently established his claim of title by adverse possession. We are convinced by our study of the record that he met that burden of proof.
During the pivotal years the tract was, according to the weight of the testimony, completely enclosed, mainly by a fence and to some extent by a bluff that served the same purpose as a fence. Several of Downs's employees--Vernon Coggin, Truman Wiles, Claud Turner, Herbert Wilson, and Verl Chism--testified that the fence around the land had been maintained for from seven to fifteen years preceding the lawsuit. Three of those witnesses--Turner, Wilson, and Chism--testified that they had 'ridden' the fence for more than seven years, checking upon its condition every...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M. L. Sigmon Forest Products, Inc. v. Scroggins
...to be correct upon the record as a whole, even though the chancellor may have given the wrong reason for his conclusion. Morgan v. Downs, 245 Ark. 328, 432 S.W.2d 454. See also Reamey v. Watt, 240 Ark. 893, 403 S.W.2d 102; Downtowner Corp. v. Commonwealth Sec. Corp., 243 Ark. 122, 419 S.W.2......
-
Arkansas Best Corp. v. General Elec. Capital Corp.
...decision can be sustained on other grounds, it will be done. O'Neal v. Ellison, 266 Ark. 702, 587 S.W.2d 580 (1979); Morgan v. Downs, 245 Ark. 328, 432 S.W.2d 454 (1968). Arkansas Best was never a party to this litigation, and the parties to this cause of action settled their dispute and, b......
-
Barclay v. Tussey, 75--248
...not put Barclay off. It was not necessary that the Barclays have color of title in order to establish adverse possession. Morgan v. Downs, 245 Ark. 328, 432 S.W.2d 454. For possession to be adverse, as distinguished from permissive, it is only necessary that it be hostile in the sense that ......
-
Pullen v. Pullen's Estate
...will be affirmed, even though our reason for reaching the conclusion differs from the reason given by the trial court. In Morgan v. Downs, 245 Ark. 328, 432 S.W.2d 434, we 'It is our rule, however, that on trial de novo a chancery decree will be affirmed if it appears to be correct upon the......