Moore v. Slade

5 Citing cases

  1. Thompson v. Odom

    279 Ala. 211 (Ala. 1966)   Cited 30 times
    In Thompson v. Odom, 279 Ala. 211, 184 So. 2d 120 (1966), one of the cases relied on by theTaylor court, the Alabama Supreme Court stated that "in absence of statutory provision to the contrary, all parties litigant, once in court, either for themselves or through their attorneys must keep track of their case, know their status, and ascertain for themselves when their case will be tried."

    Kidd v. Borum, 181 Ala. 144, 61 So. 100; Riggs v. Fuller, 54 Ala. 141; Weaver v. Blackmon, 212 Ala. 681, 103 So. 889; Elsheimer v. Parker Bank Trust Co., 237 Ala. 24, 185 So. 385; Dew v. Garner, 207 Ala. 353, 92 So. 647, 27 A.L.R. 5; Moore v. Elliott, 217 Ala. 339, 116 So. 346; Black v. Black, 233 Ala. 425, 172 So. 275; Clanahan v. Morgan, 268 Ala. 71, 105 So.2d 429. A quit claim deed executed by a co-tenant, which purports to convey the entire property is a sufficient basis on which to ground a title by adverse possession in the grantee. Moore v. Slade, 194 Okl. 143, 147 P.2d 1006; Tillotson v. Foster, 310 Ill. 52, 141 N.E. 412; Watters v. Tucker, 6 Ohio Law Abst. 411; Lucas v. Crofoot, 95 Conn. 619, 112 A. 165; Hall v. Waterman, 220 Ill. 569, 77 N.E. 142, 4 L.R.A., N.S., 776; Fuller v. Swensberg, 106 Mich. 305, 64 N.W. 463, 58 Am.St.Rep. 481; Laraway v. Larue, 63 Iowa 407, 19 N.W. 242. Where a joint owner or tenant in common pays taxes on property or redeems it from tax sale or mortgage foreclosure, the law presumes that he acts for the benefit of all of the joint owners, and they may seasonably contribute their proportion, and preserve their interest therein.

  2. Richterberg v. Wittich Memorial Church

    222 F. Supp. 324 (W.D. Okla. 1963)   Cited 8 times

    1. Under the law of Oklahoma title by prescription or by adverse possession may be acquired by one who is in actual, open, visible, notorious, continuous, exclusive and hostile possession with claim of ownership for a period of fifteen years. Moore v. Slade, Okla., 147 P.2d 1006. 2.

  3. Porter v. Herron

    295 P.2d 772 (Okla. 1956)   Cited 2 times

    Defendant having acquired his only record title to lots not awarded him in the judgment in 1943 from Mary Millage, who only had record title to two of the lots, title to which was awarded defendant, he must rely upon proof of adverse possession under a claim of right and not color of title. This court has held in several cases that a possession, to be adverse, must be open, visible, continuous, and exclusive, with a claim of ownership, such as will notify parties seeking information upon the subject that the premises are not held in subordination to any title or claim of others, but against all titles and claimants. Moore v. Slade, 194 Okla. 143, 147 P.2d 1006; James v. Union Graded School District No. 2, Muskogee Co., 201 Okla. 573, 207 P.2d 241; Liles v. Smith, 206 Okla. 458, 244 P.2d 582. The trial court made a finding that the land platted into the town of Eastport is rough, open, unimproved, largely in timber; that no effort has been made to develop it into a town, and that plaintiff had been in constructive possession since April 29, 1945 of all the townsite area except that part held to be owned by the defendants. The evidence adduced by plaintiff reasonably supports such finding.

  4. James v. Union Graded School Dist. No. 2, Muskogee

    207 P.2d 241 (Okla. 1949)   Cited 14 times
    In James v. Union Graded School Dist. No. 2, 201 Okla. 573, 207 P.2d 241, involving title by adverse possession we applied the rule that, where in a cause of equitable cognizance the trial court had before it all the pleadings and evidence and upon hearing determined all of the issues of fact and law, in such case, the Supreme Court, on appeal will weigh the evidence, but will not reverse the judgment on the facts unless it is against the clear weight of the evidence.

    Under Title 12, sec. 93, par. 4, O. S. 1941, the statutory period for an adverse possession to ripen into a title by prescription is fifteen years. In Moore v. Slade, 194 Okla. 143, 147 P.2d 1006, this court said: "A possession to be adverse must be open, visible, continuous, and exclusive, with a claim of ownership, such as will notify parties seeking information upon the subject that the premises are not held in subordination to any claim of others, but against all titles and claimants."

  5. Records v. Miles

    200 Okla. 62 (Okla. 1948)   Cited 8 times
    In Records v. Miles, 200 Okla. 62, 191 P.2d 918, we quoted with approval from Akley v. Bassett, 189 Cal. 625, 209 P. 576, that to constitute ouster of a cotenant requires "* * * acts of the most open and notorious character, clearly giving notice to the world, and to all having occasion to observe the condition and occupancy of the property that the intention is to exclude, and does exclude the cotenant.

    " Sustaining this interpretation of the law are the cases of Wirick et al. v. Nance, 178 Okla. 180, 62 P.2d 997, and Moore v. Slade et al., 194 Okla. 143, 147 P.2d 1006. This being a suit in equity, the judgment of the trial court will not be reversed unless against the clear weight of the evidence.