Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Hummel v. Young

Utah Supreme Court

Decided December 24, 1953No. 7849Published

1ConcurrenceWade, Justice

I agree that this fence was not established by acquiescence as the boundary line because there is no evidence that the defendants or their predecessors acquiesced in it as such. Such acquiescence requires assent or consent by the owners of adjoining tracts of land that a known line which is clearly marked by a fence or other monuments is the boundary line between such adjoining tracts by silently treating it as such and failure to make any protest.1 It does not require an express agreement to that effect., Here, except for the last four or five years prior to the commencement of this action,…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Baldwin v. . BrownNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
  2. Tripp v. BagleyUtah Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Holmes v. JudgeUtah Supreme Court · 1906
  4. Brown v. MillinerUtah Supreme Court · 1951
  5. Rydalch v. AndersonUtah Supreme Court · 1910

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API