Robinson v. Sheets
| Decision Date | 28 January 1908 |
| Citation | 61 S.E. 347,63 W.Va. 394 |
| Parties | ROBINSON v. SHEETS et al. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted January 10, 1908.
Rehearing Denied May 1, 1908.
Syllabus by the Court.
Where there is in fact an interlock of two conflicting grants or deeds, possession of a junior grantee or adverse claimant in actual occupancy of a part of the interlock claiming the whole to the extent of his boundaries will not be limited by the actual possession of the elder grantee or owner outside the interlock to that part in his actual occupancy, but he will be held to be in adverse possession of all land in the interlock.
[Ed Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 1, Adverse Possession, § 377.]
Where the calls of a junior patent and of deeds subsequent thereto are for the lines and corners of a senior patent, there can be no interlock claimed under such title papers, the only question to be determined being the true location of such common lines and corners. Mere dispute between conflicting claimants as to where the true lines and corners are do not constitute an interlock.
[Ed Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 8, Boundaries §§ 67, 73.]
Point 1 of the syllabus in Kelley v. Railroad Co., 58 W.Va 216, 52 S.E. 520, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 898, approved and applied.
Error from Circuit Court, Wetzel County.
Action by S. M. Robinson against Hamilton P. Sheets and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Thos. P. Jacobs, for plaintiff in error.
M. R. Morris and Hall & Hall, for defendants in error.
In ejectment the plaintiff claims title to 220 acres under a grant for 1,000 acres junior to the grant for 350 acres under which defendants claim, said 220 acres lying north and east of said senior patent. But it is claimed by defendants that their immediate deed from one John Lantz, a son of the patentee, of the 350 acres, does not carry them to the true northern and eastern lines and corners of the original patent, but that their grantor, knowing of the adverse possession involved here, did not convey to them to such true lines and corners; and hence they in this suit disclaimed the land sued for beyond the northern and eastern lines so designated in their deed. On the other hand, the plaintiff claims that the northern line of defendants' deed, being the one called for therein "S., 75 1/2~ E., 118 poles to a fallen black oak," is the true northern boundary line called for in the original patent, and also in the patent under which she claims, but that the line called for in defendants' deed "South 137 poles to a stone pile" is not the true eastern line called for in either of the original grants; that another line running from said black oak, called for in each of said grants as running "S., 10~ W., 166 poles," but by actual survey on the official plat of the surveyor in this case running "S., 13~ W., 143 1/2 poles," is the true eastern division line between the two grants. The land lying between these two diverging lines running from the black oak is the subject of controversy in this suit. The defendants moreover, claim that the black oak called for in the original grant under which they claim is located northeast of the black oak corner called for in their immediate deed. There was considerable conflicting evidence in support of each of these claims. It is conceded that, if the black oak corner claimed by the plaintiff and to which the deed of defendants goes is the one called for in the original grant, the line by actual survey running "S., 13~ W., 143 1/2 poles" is the true eastern dividing line between the parties; that, if the black oak corner claimed by defendants be the true one, the line running from that corner "S., 10~ W., 166 poles," is such true eastern dividing line; and that the land actually in controversy is within the boundary of the defendants' immediate deed, and within the boundary of the 350-acre patent. On the trial the parties each by unbroken chain traced title back to the respective grants under which they claim, except that it is claimed by defendants that there is a...
To continue reading
Request your trial