Title: Porter v. Arkansas Western Gas Co.

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

482 S.W.2d 598 (1972) Tennie PORTER et al., Appellants, v. ARKANSAS WESTERN GAS CO. et al., Appellees. No. 5-5911. Supreme Court of Arkansas. July 3, 1972. Ralph W. Robinson, Van Buren, Hardin, Jesson & Dawson, Ft. Smith, for appellants. Daily, West, Core & Coffman, Ft. Smith, Ball, Gallman & Martin, Fayetteville, N. D. Edwards, Van Buren, for appellees. BROWN, Justice. This action was commenced by Arkansas Western Gas Company as a bill in interpleader following the successful completion of a gas well in Crawford County near the Arkansas River. All the landowners in the area were joined as defendants. The dispute *599 as to ownership is primarily between the Cooks and the Humphreys, the riparian owners on the south or Sebastian County side of the river, and the appellants, who are the landowners on the north or Crawford County side. At the point in question the river forms, roughly, the shape of a horseshoe. From 1827 until 1961 the river moved northward, which action caused a considerable portion of the land on the north bank to be washed into the river. At the same time a sand bar of considerable size formed in the river between the north and south bank and it is that area which is in dispute in the case. The appellants on the north side contend that the formation was an island within their original boundaries, or that it was formed by avulsion. Appellees dispute that the area in litigation is an island, contending that it is a gravel bar. Appellees also contend that the area in the bend became non-navigable in 1962 when the United States Government constructed a cut-off from one side of the "horseshoe" to the other, that the old channel became non-navigable and title reverted to the riparian owners. The thalweg, or main thread of the flow of the river, was near the north bank which of course places the gravel bar on the south side of the thalweg. The chancellor found in favor of appellees on all points and on appeal it is urged that the chancellor was in error in finding that the land in question was not formed as an island within the original boundaries of the appellants, or that the same was not formed by avulsion. After hearing several witnesses, viewing numerous maps, and touring the area in question, the court made extensive findings on the questions of avulsion and the nature of the land in dispute: With reference to all the findings of facts detailed in the trial court's excellent opinion we find that they are not against the preponderance of the evidence. It is our duty to affirm unless we conclude that the chancellor's findings are against the preponderance of the evidence. Simpson *600 v. Martin, 174 Ark. 956, 298 S.W. 861 (1927). Likewise, we find the legal conclusions of the chancellor to be appropriate. With respect to the nature of the formation in disputewhether an island or sand barthe subject was treated in Crow v. Johnston, 209 Ark. 1053, 194 S.W.2d 193 (1946): On the question of avulsion as opposed to accretion, there was ample evidence which meets the test laid down in Yutterman v. Grier, 112 Ark. 366, 166 S.W. 749 (1914): Likewise, the finding of the chancellor that title to the old, non-navigable river bed created by the cut-off, vested in the riparian owners with the thalweg being the dividing line is supported by Ark.Stat. Anno. §§ 10-204, 205 (Repl.1956); Parker v. Moore, 222 Ark. 811, 262 S.W.2d 891 (1953); Gill v. Porter, 248 Ark. 140, 450 S.W.2d 306 (1970). The judgment is in all respects affirmed.