Brown v. Hanauer
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Clay Circuit Court in Chancery. Hon. W. H. Cate, Judge. Possession by mistake is not hostile. Possession will not of itself establish quo animo. 34 Iowa, 150. But admitting that Hanauer’s possession was- adverse, he was not in possession seven years; he abandoned the possession before the lapse of the seven years.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Clay Circuit Court in Chancery. Hon. W. H. Cate, Judge. Possession by mistake is not hostile. Possession will not of itself establish quo animo. 34 Iowa, 150. But admitting that Hanauer’s possession was- adverse, he was not in possession seven years; he abandoned the possession before the lapse of the seven years. Then the constructive possession revived to the legal owner, and a new entry on the part of Hanauer was necessary, and a new adverse possession had to be inaugurated, which his previous possession could in no way assert. 86 N. G., V59. The payment of taxes is no evidence…
1Opinion of the CourtCockrill, C. J.
Damages for the right of way over the lands in controversy were assessed and paid into the Olay circuit court by a railroad, and the several claimants for the lands were left to litigate the title and settle among themselves the right to receive the fund. The appellants’ action of ejectment for the possession of the fractional section of which the condemned portion was a part, was consolidated with the proceeding to determine the right to the fund paid by the railroad, on motion of Hanauer, and the consolidated suit was at his instance, transferred to equity in order to enable him [1] to…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Utley v. RuffSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1973
- Skelly Oil Company v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1946
- Clark v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1982
- Roth v. HollandSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1892
- Hoshall v. BrownSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.