Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Wright v. Clifford
Citations: 219 Ark. 537; 243 S.W.2d 569; 1951 Ark. LEXIS 560Docket: 4-9578
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; November 12, 1951; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Ivan Wright seeks to quiet title to a 300 by 99-foot tract of land in Phillips Addition, focusing on the northern boundary's true location. Wright claims this boundary should be set 14.9 feet north of the line established in a lower court ruling. The appellees, E. H. Clifford and Ina Gabler, own adjacent parcels to the north, with Clifford's property to the east of Gabler's. A preliminary issue arose regarding the admissibility of the court reporter's transcribed testimony, which was contested for lack of chancellor approval. However, the court determined that the testimony was properly filed and treated as depositions under the statutes applicable at the time, negating the need for such approval. The core of the dispute centers on Wright’s claim of adverse possession of the 14.9-foot strip. While Wright argues that the deed descriptions are void due to a lack of proper reference to government surveys, the appellees assert that the descriptions are valid. The chancellor's decision to quiet Wright's title on the disputed land is not contested by the appellees, focusing the case solely on whether Wright proved adverse possession. Wright claims that he and his predecessors have physically possessed the disputed strip, particularly a gravel driveway maintained for over seven years, which abuts Clifford's property. Testimony indicated that the driveway existed when Wright's predecessor purchased the land in 1932 and was used by Clifford after leasing the store located on Wright's property. Evidence suggests that Clifford had permission to add gravel to the driveway, reinforcing the existence of the driveway as a point of contention regarding adverse use. The court noted that the evidence supports Wright's claim of maintaining the driveway, which could establish the necessary adverse possession against Clifford. Clifford, the only contradicting witness, acknowledges being Phegley’s tenant and claims Phegley indicated the store was on his north boundary. He states he built a driveway in 1941, believing the land belonged to George Wright, but admits he didn't seek Wright's permission nor paid for its use, while noting the adjacent building has its own driveway. Evidence suggests the driveway was used adversely for over seven years as part of the appellant’s store, but the exact area occupied remains unclear. The case is remanded to confirm Wright's title to the area used for the driveway, requiring further proof. Regarding Mrs. Gabler’s disputed strip, Wright claims adverse possession based on maintaining a small outhouse and a drainage ditch as visible boundaries. However, evidence is mixed; Mrs. Gabler asserts the outhouse was moved onto her property by Wright after his 1946 purchase, corroborated by Eli Busby, who assisted in the move. Gabler also claims the drainage ditch was initially on her land but was altered by Wright in 1946. With conflicting testimonies and no clear evidence establishing adverse possession beyond the outhouse's footprint, the findings of the chancellor in the Wright-Gabler dispute are upheld, affirming this part of the decree.