Dorr v. School District No. 26
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Independence Circuit Court. Hon. R. H. Powell, Circuit Judge. The deed is grossly loose, if not defective in description, and it would be an immense strain upon the maxim “Id cerium est," &c., to find this land. Exceptions should not be sustained unless the ambiguity is patent, and if by the description given a starting point can- be found, then, we admit the Court had no right to reject the deed on account of uncertainty.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Independence Circuit Court. Hon. R. H. Powell, Circuit Judge. The deed is grossly loose, if not defective in description, and it would be an immense strain upon the maxim “Id cerium est," &c., to find this land. Exceptions should not be sustained unless the ambiguity is patent, and if by the description given a starting point can- be found, then, we admit the Court had no right to reject the deed on account of uncertainty. H was a questionable method of attacking a title of one in possession. See acts 1874-5, p. 229; Greenl., on Ev., sec. 298. As the house was vacant when…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Dorr brought ejectment against the school district for three acres of land, deducing title by deed made to himself in 1874, by Benjamin I. Edwards and wife, for the quarter section, which included the premises in controversy.
The defences were, 1st. Adverse possession for more than the period required by law to ripen a title; and 2nd, a deed of conveyance for the premises made to the defendant’s trustee by the plaintiff’s grantor in 1870. This last deed does not mention any section or township, the description being “s> certain parcel of land lying and being in the county of Independence,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Shirras & Others v. Caig & MitchelSupreme Court of the United States · 1812
- Pillow v. RobertsSupreme Court of the United States · 1852
- Bradley v. Washington, Alexandria, & Georgetown Steam Packet Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1839
- Hamilton v. BoggessSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Brown v. . CobleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1877
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- C. & A. Construction Co. v. Benning Construction Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1974
- Paragould v. LawsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
- Walker v. DavidSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1901
- Scott v. Dunkel Box & Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Ashcraft v. TuckerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.