Colson v. Hall

6 Citing cases

  1. Bynum v. Liberty Natl. BK

    338 F.2d 412 (10th Cir. 1964)   Cited 1 times

    Smith v. Pettijohn (Okla.) 366 P.2d 633, 637. Colson v. Hall, 206 Okla. 687, 246 P.2d 339, 340. See also Norman v. Smedley, (Okla.) 363 P.2d 839, 843.

  2. Francis v. Rogers

    2001 OK 111 (Okla. 2001)   Cited 14 times
    In Francis, the disputed property was part of a tract of land originally held by Hendricks. East and west tracts of this land were separated by a railroad.

    Accordingly, the trial court's determination regarding adverse possession was based on insufficient evidence to establish title to the narrow strip of land east of the railroad right of way through adverse possession. See e.g., Norman v. Smedley, note, 10, supra; Colson v. Hall, 1952 OK 155, 246 P.2d 339.B.The Trial Court's Determination that the Fence was Intended to Act as a Boundary Line is Not Supported by the Evidence.

  3. Hodgden v. Kliewer

    557 P.2d 885 (Okla. 1976)

    In order to establish title by adverse possession, proof must be clear and positive on constituent elements of actual, open, notorious, exclusive and hostile possession for statutory period. Colson v. Hall, 206 Okla. 687, 246 P.2d 339 (1952). We agree with the Trial Court that the Appellants have not met that test.

  4. Sears v. State, Dept. of Wildlife Conservation

    1976 OK 56 (Okla. 1976)   Cited 11 times

    To establish title by adverse possession, proof must be clear and positive on constituent elements of actual, open, notorious, exclusive and hostile possession for statutory period. Colson v. Hall, 206 Okla. 687, 246 P.2d 339; Kouri v. Burnett, supra. The doctrine of adverse possession is to be taken strictly and is not to be made out by inference, but by clear and positive proof and every presumption is in favor of possession in subordination to title of true owner.

  5. Kouri v. Burnett

    1966 OK 61 (Okla. 1966)   Cited 13 times

    It is also a well established rule of law that in order to establish title by adverse possession, the proof must be clear and positive on the constituent elements of actual, open, notorious, exclusive and hostile possession for the statutory period. Colson v. Hall, 206 Okla. 687, 246 P.2d 339. In addition to those matters above set forth the trial court was presented with testimony that at the time plaintiff acquired his property on July 23, 1945, the 50 foot strip was fenced along the south and thereof and was enclosed with his other property, and that plaintiff went into possession thereof, and planted and harvested crops on the land until about 5 years before the trial (February 11, 1963) when he allowed the property to go to grass, and had pastured horses thereon.

  6. Stern v. Franklin

    1955 OK 250 (Okla. 1955)   Cited 5 times

    After defendant, E.B. Franklin, obtained his deed he paid the taxes on said land for the years 1942, '43, '44 and '45; and thereafter for the years 1946 to the present time taxes upon said land were paid by the defendant Jackson: and said land was known in the community as the Jackson land. Plaintiff cites in support of his contention the cases of Lind v. Stubblefield, 138 Okla. 280, 282 P. 365; Williams v. Bailey, Okla., 268 P.2d 868; Stewart v. Seigle, Okla., 274 P.2d 395; Morton v. Van Orsdol, 203 Okla. 394, 222 P.2d 520; Farmers Nat. Bank of Oklahoma City v. Gillis, 155 Okla. 290, 9 P.2d 47; McElhany v. Langston, 105 Okla. 209, 232 P. 439; Russell v. Davidson, 200 Okla. 408, 194 P.2d 887; Colson v. Hall, 206 Okla. 687, 246 P.2d 339; Wilcox v. Wickizer, Okla., 266 P.2d 638; Reinhart Donovan Co. v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co., 187 Okla. 661, 105 P.2d 541; Brewster v. Herron, Okla., 267 P.2d 143; which hold that the party relying on a title by adverse possession has the burden of proving all facts necessary to establish such title. Adverse possession is to be taken strictly, and every presumption is in favor of possession in subordination to the rightful owner.