Richards v. Howell
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Union Chancery Court; James M. Barber, Chancellor; 1. ' The court erred in permitting defendants to file their amended and substituted answers.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Union Chancery Court; James M. Barber, Chancellor; 1. ' The court erred in permitting defendants to file their amended and substituted answers. The pleadings are inconsistent. 1 Ark. 66. 2. The decree is erroneous in holding that Wilson had title by adverse possession. 20 Ark. 553; 84 Minn, 4; 168 U. S. 278; 1 Cyc. 1037; 59 Ark. 626. His possession was not adverse, as he took possession by mistake. 83 Ark. 74; 59 Id. 626; 101 Id. 409; 15 Id. 279; 77 Id. 201; 80 Id. 444; 87 Id. 625; 100 Id. 555; 100 Id. 71; 72 Id. 498. The burden of proving adverse possession is on the one relying…
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, J.,
(after stating the facts). (1) It is first insisted by counsel for the plaintiff that the court erred in permitting the defendants to file their amended and substituted answers. Counsel for the defendants claim that when the suit was first instituted they filed their answers under the mistaken belief that the plaintiff was suing them for cutting timber on the land which he had been occupying and that their employees by mistake had cut some timber from that land; that when they discovered that the plaintiff was suing them for cutting the timber on the forty acres of land which the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Myers v. HawkinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1900
- Hall v. Wellman Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Suhs v. Homewood Rice Land SyndicateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
3Cited by2 opinions
- Chalkley v. HenleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
- Britt v. HarperSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918