Dargan v. Keystone Mills Co.

With due deference to the opinion of my brethren, I cannot agree that the mere continued operation of the tramroad across the land in controversy, after all timber cutting on the land had ceased, constituted that “actual and visible appropriation of the land” required by our statute of limitations as a basis of adverse possession.

As indicated by the majority opinion, ap-pellees were in actual use and occupancy of all of tbe land only about two years of the claimed limitation period, cutting and removing the timber. This was at the beginning of the period of limitation. When the timber cutting…