Morton v. Hall

8 Citing cases

  1. Harrison v. Stolfi

    2023 Ark. App. 506 (Ark. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Maybe not. But the circuit court's boundary-by-acquiescence finding gives the Stolfis the same relief, and it does not depend on adversity. Morton v. Hall, 239 Ark. 1094, 1099, 396 S.W.2d 830, 833 (1965). Acquiescence does not require possession or occupation of the claimed property either, and it "may arise 'without the necessity of adverse use to the line.'"

  2. Myers v. Yingling

    372 Ark. 523 (Ark. 2008)   Cited 28 times
    In Myers v. Yingling, 372 Ark. 523, 527, 279 S.W.3d 83, 87 (2008), the supreme court held that "[w]henever adjoining landowners tacitly accept a fence line or other monument as the visible evidence of their dividing line and thus apparently consent to that line, it becomes the boundary by acquiescence."

    Harris v. Robertson, 306 Ark. 258, 813 S.W.2d 252 (1991); Deidrich v. Simmons, 75 Ark. 400, 87 S.W. 649 (1905); Clark v. Casebier, supra. Nor is there any requirement of adverse usage up to a boundary fence to establish a boundary by acquiescence. Morton v. Hall, 239 Ark. 1094, 396 S.W.2d 830 (1965); Clark, supra; Walker v. Walker, 8 Ark. App. 297, 651 S.W.2d 116 (1983). The property in dispute in this case is in the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section Five, Township Nine North, Range Six West in White County. Specifically, the question presented to the trial court was the placement or location of the western boundary of the Yinglings' property and the eastern boundary of Myers's property.

  3. Rabjohn v. Ashcraft

    252 Ark. 565 (Ark. 1972)   Cited 21 times
    In Rabjohn v. Ashcraft, 252 Ark. 565, 480 S.W.2d 138 (1972), our supreme court held that the landowners' agreement can be parol only and need not even be expressed but can be inferred from long, continued acquiescence of the owners plus occupation to the line.

    Kittler v. Phillips, 246 Ark. 233, 437 S.W.2d 455; Barnes v. Young, 238 Ark. 484, 382 S.W.2d 580; Vaughn v. Chandler, supra; Robinson v. Gaylord, supra; Deidrich v. Simmons, supra. Quite apart from the inference of some parol agreement, a boundary may also be established by adjoining owners by acquiescence in a clearly established line as the boundary over a period in excess of seven years, whether preceded by a dispute or uncertainty as to the line or not and without the necessity of adverse user to the line. Vaughn v. Chandler, supra; Seidenstricker v. Holtzendorff, 214 Ark. 644, 217 S.W.2d 836; Morton v. Hall, 239 Ark. 1094, 396 S.W.2d 830. See also, Kittler v. Phillips, supra; Clay v. Dodd, 238 Ark. 604, 383 S.W.2d 504; 12 Am.Jur.2d 621, Boundaries, 86. Whenever adjoining landowners tacitly accept a fence line or other monument as the visible evidence of their dividing line and thus apparently consent to that line, it becomes the boundary by acquiescence.

  4. Kittler v. Phillips

    437 S.W.2d 455 (Ark. 1969)   Cited 9 times

    Gregory v. Jones, supra. Nor is there any requirement of adverse usage up to a boundary fence to establish a boundary by acquiescence. Morton v. Hall, 239 Ark. 1094, 396 S.W.2d 830 (1965.) The chancellor has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witness in evaluating conflicting evidence.

  5. Ward v. Adams

    66 Ark. App. 208 (Ark. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 17 times
    Deferring to the trial court on the comparison and credibility of surveys

    Moreover, establishment of a boundary line by acquiescence does not require adverse possession of the land by one party. See Morton v. Hall, 239 Ark. 1094, 396 S.W.2d 830 (1965). When the adjoining landowners occupy their respective premises up to the line they acquiesce in as the boundary for a long period of time, they and their grantees are precluded from claiming that the boundary thus acquiesced in is not the true boundary, although it may not be. Rabjohn v. Ashcraft, 252 Ark. 565, 480 S.W.2d 138 (1972).

  6. Jennings v. Burford

    60 Ark. App. 27 (Ark. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 52 times
    Determining that an order was final where it referenced an already existing survey and simply required modification to insert a more specific description

    Moreover, establishment of a boundary line by acquiescence does not require adverse possession of the land by one party. See Morton v. Hall, 239 Ark. 1094, 396 S.W.2d 830 (1965). When the adjoining landowners occupy their respective premises up to the line they acquiesce in as the boundary for a long period of time, they and their grantees are precluded from claiming that the boundary thus acquiesced in is not the true boundary, although it may not be. Rabjohn v. Ashcraft, 252 Ark. 565, 480 S.W.2d 138 (1972).

  7. Walker v. Walker

    8 Ark. App. 297 (Ark. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 9 times
    In Walker, we affirmed a boundary along an old road where, in thirty years, the record owner's predecessor had never farmed north of it, and the claimant had never farmed south of it.

    Nor is there any requirement of adverse usage up to a boundary fence to establish a boundary by acquiescence. Morton v. Hall, 239 Ark. 1094, 396 S.W.2d 830 (1965). Instead, whenever adjoining landowners tacitly accept a fence line or other monument as the visible evidence of their dividing line and thus apparently consent to that line, it becomes the boundary by acquiescence.

  8. Price v. Mauch

    1 Ark. App. 348 (Ark. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 3 times

    The law is well settled that when adjoining landowners silently acquiesce for many years in the location of a fence as the visible evidence of the division line and thus apparently consent to that line, the fence line becomes the boundary by acquiescence. Morton v. Hall, 239 Ark. 1094, 396 S.W.2d 830 (1965), and Williamson v. Rainwater, 236 Ark. 885, 370 S.W.2d 443 (1963). Since we find that the record reflects that the parties and their predecessors acquiesced in the fence being the boundary line, we deny appellee's petition for rehearing.