Porter v. Arkansas Western Gas Co.
| Decision Date | 06 September 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--5911,5--5911 |
| Citation | 482 S.W.2d 598,252 Ark. 958 |
| Parties | Tennie PORTER et al., Appellants, v. ARKANSAS WESTERN GAS CO. et al., Appellees. . July, 3, 1972. Ralph W. Robinson, Van Buren, Hardin, Jesson & Dawson, Ft. Smith, for appellants. Daily, West, Core & Coffman, Ft. Smith, Ball, Gallman & Martin, Fayetteville, N. D. Edwards, Van Buren, for appellees. BROWN, Justice. This action was commenced by Arkansas Western Gas Company as a bill in interpleader following the successful completion of a gas well in Crawford County near the Arkansas River. All the landowners in the area were joined as defendants. The dispute as to ownership is primarily between the Cooks and the Humphreys, the riparian owners on the south or Sebastian County side of the river, and the appellants, who are the landowners on the north or Crawford County side. At the point in question the river forms, roughly, the shape of a horseshoe. From 1827 until 1961 the river moved northward, which action caused a considerable portion of the land on the north bank to be washed into the river. At the same time a sand bar of considerable size formed in the river between the north and south bank and it is that area which is in dispute in the case. The appellants on the north side contend that the formation was an island within their original boundaries, or that it was formed by avulsion. Appellees dispute that the area in litigation is an island, contending that it is a gravel bar. Appellees also contend that the area in the bend became non-navigable in 1962 when the United States Government constructed a cut-off from one side of the 'horseshoe' to the other, that the old channel became non-navigable and title reverted to the riparian owners. The thalweg, or main thread of the flow of the river, was near the north bank which of course places the gravel bar on the south side of the thalweg. The chancellor found in favor of appellees on all points and on appeal it is urged that the chancellor was in error in finding that the land in question was not formed as an island |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Ralph W. Robinson, Van Buren, Hardin, Jesson & Dawson, Ft. Smith, for appellants.
Daily, West, Core & Coffman, Ft. Smith, Ball, Gallman & Martin, Fayetteville, N. D. Edwards, Van Buren, for appellees.
This action was commenced by Arkansas Western Gas Company as a bill in interpleader following the successful completion of a gas well in Crawford County near the Arkansas River. All the landowners in the area were joined as defendants. The dispute as to ownership is primarily between the Cooks and the Humphreys, the riparian owners on the south or Sebastian County side of the river, and the appellants, who are the landowners on the north or Crawford County side. At the point in question the river forms, roughly, the shape of a horseshoe. From 1827 until 1961 the river moved northward, which action caused a considerable portion of the land on the north bank to be washed into the river. At the same time a sand bar of considerable size formed in the river between the north and south bank and it is that area which is in dispute in the case. The appellants on the north side contend that the formation was an island within their original boundaries, or that it was formed by avulsion. Appellees dispute that the area in litigation is an island, contending that it is a gravel bar. Appellees also contend that the area in the bend became non-navigable in 1962 when the United States Government constructed a cut-off from one side of the 'horseshoe' to the other, that the old channel became non-navigable and title reverted to the riparian owners. The thalweg, or main thread of the flow of the river, was near the north bank which of course places the gravel bar on the south side of the thalweg.
The chancellor found in favor of appellees on all points and on appeal it is urged that the chancellor was in error in finding that the land in question was not formed as an island within the original boundaries of the appellants, or that the same was not formed by avulsion.
After hearing several witnesses, viewing numerous maps, and touring the area in question, the court made extensive findings on the questions of avulsion and the nature of the land in dispute:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swaim v. Stephens Production Co.
...Co., supra (citing Nix v. Pfeifer, 73 Ark. 199, 83 S.W. 951 (1904)). More on point, perhaps, is the case of Porter v. Arkansas Western Gas Co., 252 Ark. 958, 482 S.W.2d 598 (1972), where the gas company sought to have ownership determined for a gas well located on a piece of land near the A......
-
White v. JH Hamlen & Son Co.
...It is true that the statute applies to islands of a permanent character and not to sandbars. See Porter v. Arkansas Western Gas Co., 252 Ark. 958, 482 S.W.2d 598 (1972). However, a reading of the chancellor's opinion does not convince us that Hamlen's exhibit shows, as a matter of law, that......
-
State v. Hatchie Coon Hunting and Fishing
...favor the process of accretion, all support that the property was created by accretion. See contra Porter v. Arkansas Western Gas Co., 252 Ark. 958, 482 S.W.2d 598 (1972) (finding that a channel formation, which had no permanent character, no permanent vegetation, and which had been moving ......
-
Dye v. Anderson Tully Co.
...the boundary between the counties moves with the movement of the navigable river by the process of accretions. Porter v. Ark. Western Gas Co., 252 Ark. 958, 482 S.W.2d 598 (1972). However, when the bed of a navigable river that serves as the boundary line between two counties is abandoned d......