Fyler v. Hartness
Supreme Court of Kansas
1DissentPrice, J.
I am unable to agree with the holding of the court in this case. As I read this record there is only one conclusion to be drawn from the evidence, namely, the parties simply occupied their respective properties up to the fence line in the mistaken belief that it was on the true and correct boundary line between lots 23 and 25. While it is true that defendants acquiesced in such occupancy by plaintiffs, yet I do not think such mere acquiescence, under the facts of this case, can be held to constitute an agreement between the parties that the fence was the dividing line between their properties.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Steinbruck v. BabbSupreme Court of Kansas · 1938
- Wilson v. Pum ZeSupreme Court of Kansas · 1949
- Craig v. PaulkSupreme Court of Kansas · 1947