London v. Overby
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Arkansas Circuit Court in Chancery. Hon. X. J. Pindall Circuit Judge. Appellant and appellees were tenants in common, and the possession of one is the possession of all .Segwick Sj Wait on trial of title to land.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Arkansas Circuit Court in Chancery. Hon. X. J. Pindall Circuit Judge. Appellant and appellees were tenants in common, and the possession of one is the possession of all .Segwick Sj Wait on trial of title to land. Par., 276 ; and note 2. Before a tenant in common can set up limitation or adverse possession he must disavow and disclaim his trust or cotenancy, and there must be some notorious act asserting entire ownership and that brought home to the knowledge of the cotenant, lb. par. 279 That this relationship existed. See JDrennan v. Walker, 21 Ark., 553. Byers v. Lanley, 27…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
London filed his bill for partition of eighty acres of land, claiming to be the owner .of an undivided one third share or part thereof. The answer denied that the plaintiff had any interest in the premises and alleged that the defendant, Mary Overby was seized in fee and in actual possession of the whole tract. The proofs showed that Mrs. Overby, through her tenant had been in possession for three or four years, enjoying the rents and profits, without accounting to the plaintiff or those under whom he claimed, and without acknowledging his title. The Circuit Coart dismissed the bill without…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Asheey v. Little RockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1892
- Denton v. FyfeSupreme Court of Kansas · 1902
- Head v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1902
- LaCotts v. PikeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Cannon v. StevensSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.