McGee v. Nuckols

2 Citing cases

  1. Matthews v. McGee

    358 F.2d 516 (8th Cir. 1966)   Cited 4 times
    Applying Arkansas law

    The plaintiff and defendant Nuckols have been in controversy over these lands before. McGee v. Nuckols, 136 F. Supp. 948 (E.D.Ark. 1955). In that unlawful detainer case Judge Trimble referred, p. 951, to the formation of Diamond Point by accretion.

  2. McGee v. Matthews

    241 F. Supp. 300 (E.D. Ark. 1965)   Cited 4 times
    In McGee v. Matthews, 241 F. Supp. 300 (E. D. Ark. 1965), it was pointed out that lands are formed by accretion when the river erodes away, passes over and fills in the lands involved.

    Defendant Nuckols also claims title by virtue of a deed from M.P. Price and wife to the Frl NE-1/4 of Section 33 and the Frl S-1/2 of Section 34, which title he traces back to the United States Government. Nuckols claims all of the remainder of the lands on Diamond Point as accretions to those calls, but acknowledges that said claim is subject to the rights of co-defendants Albert Matthews, et ux. It appears that after the consummation of the unlawful detainer litigation between the present plaintiff and defendant Nuckols in Case No. 2735 in this Court [McGee v. Nuckols, (E.D.Ark. 1955) 136 F. Supp. 948], Nuckols on July 10, 1957, obtained from the State Land Commissioner a refund of the money paid for his tax deed. On September 28, 1964, Nuckols obtained a redemption deed from the State Land Commissioner to cover the lands described in the deed from M.P. Price.