Case ID: ark_69/html/0263-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bunn, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Watkins v. Arnold.
    Opinion rendered April 27, 1901.
    INTERVENTION — Judgment.—Where plaintiff sought to restrain defendants from cutting timber on land claimed by him, and defendants claimed the right to cut under a third person who was permitted to intervene, setting up title in herself, on finding the issues in favor of the intervener judgment should be a dismissal of the bill for want of equity, and not a decree quieting the intervener’s title.
    Appeal from Izard Circuit Court.
    Jno. B. MoGaleb, Judge.
    Action by Watkins against Arnold and others to enjoin defendants from cutting timber on land claimed by plaintiff under a tax title. Defendants denied plaintiff’s title, and alleged that Jane Gray was the owner of the land, and that they had authority from her to cut the timber. • She was permitted to intervene and set up title in herself. The court denied the injunction, and decreed that plaintiff’s tax title be canceled and intervener’s title quieted. Plaintiff has appealed.
    
      J. A. Watkins, for appellant.
    Appellee was not in possession adversely to appellant’s title. 58 Ark. 512; 34 Ark. 84: 15 Am. Dec. 433; 33 id. 165; 45 Ark. 427; 60 Ark. 70. A tenant at sufferance cannot give to his holding that character of adverse possession which would ripen into a title bjr limitation. 42 Ark. 118; 33 id. 633; 43 Ark. 485; Tied. B. Prop. § 226.
    
      J. B. Baker, De B. Bradshaw and T. E. Seim,, for appellees.
    Appellee’s title by adverse possession was complete. Gf. 27 Ark. 75; 23 Ark. 117.
   Bunn, C. J.

The decree in this case will be affirmed in effect, but modified so that the bill will be dismissed for want of equity, instead of decreeing title in fee in the appellee, Jane Gray, generally. She still holds under the same title, no greater, no less, than when the suit was instituted, although, as between herself and the appellant, the latter must fail on her claim of title by adverse possession.

With this modification, the decree is affirmed.