Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Mason v. Morel
Citations: 234 Ark. 660; 354 S.W.2d 19; 1962 Ark. LEXIS 742Docket: 5-2586
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; February 19, 1962; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
The suit, initiated by the appellee in an ejectment action, concerns a narrow strip of land over fourteen feet wide between the appellee's and appellant’s properties. The Court, acting as a jury, determined that the appellee had obtained title to the disputed land through open, continuous, and adverse possession for over seven years, establishing the property line within eighteen inches of the appellant's house. The appellant is appealing this judgment based on two main arguments: 1. The Court improperly admitted three photographs (Exhibits 1, 2, and 3) into evidence, claiming that a proper foundation for their admission was not established. The photographs were intended to support the appellee’s claim of adverse possession, depicting a rose garden, but only showed limited plant life, including a catalpa tree and hedge. The appellant contended that the photographs lacked credibility due to the witness's inability to identify who took them, when they were taken, or from what angle, undermining their evidentiary value. 2. The appellant argues that the appellee has not demonstrated possession of the disputed lands sufficient to establish title by adverse possession under Arkansas Statutes, Section 37-101. The appellate opinion suggests that the trial court erred in admitting the photographs due to insufficient foundational evidence, particularly regarding their timing and context, which are critical to the adverse possession claim. The witness, Mrs. Morel, provided vague details about the photographs, including their poor quality and lack of clarity regarding the timeline, significantly impacting their admissibility. Photographs are admissible as evidence only if taken at the time of the relevant transaction or prior to any changes in the situation or circumstances, as established in Hooks v. General Storage, Transfer Co. The time period between 1944 and 1959 is significant due to potential changes in the premises when assessing claims of ownership through adverse possession. Although there is a presumption that a court considers only competent testimony, the record indicates that photographs were taken into account during the proceedings. A specific interaction highlighted a witness identifying a catalpa tree on their property. However, the judgment has been reversed, and the court will not address whether the findings on adverse possession were supported by substantial evidence. The case is remanded for re-trial, allowing all parties to present additional evidence regarding ownership. Judge Robinson would reverse and dismiss the case. The clarity of the photographs in determining the nature of the hedge on the property remains ambiguous.