Title: Grape v. Laiblin
Citation: 181 Kan. 677, 314 P.2d 335
Docket Number: 40,498
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: July 31, 1957

181 Kan. 677 (1957)
314 P.2d 335
FRANK GRAPE, Appellant,
v.
CHARLES F. LAIBLIN, et al., Defendants, RALPH PRICE, Intervenor, Appellee, OTTO POHL and GERTRUDE POHL, Additional Defendants, Appellees.
No. 40,498

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed July 31, 1957.
J.W. Lowry, of Atchison, argued the cause, and Steadman Ball and Wm. E. Stillings, of Atchison, were with him on the briefs for appellant.
*678 John S. May, of Atchison, argued the cause for appellees Otto and Gertrude Pohl, and Robert F. Duncan, of Atchison, was with him on the briefs. G.W. Foley, of Atchison, argued the cause for intervenor Price.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
FATZER, J.:
This action was brought by plaintiff (appellant) to quiet title to certain real property located in Atchison County, Kansas. Only that described as the northwest quarter of section 20, township 7, range 22, is in dispute.
The trial court decreed that plaintiff's title be quieted to that portion of the northwest quarter of section 20 owned by him, except a 30-acre triangular tract in the northeast corner marked in white ink as "disputed area" on the following aerial photograph prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture in 1954.
The "disputed area" is the land involved in this controversy. The trial court found that the defendants (appellees) Otto and Gertrude Pohl were in possession of the disputed area, but it made no order affecting the title to that area other than to reject plaintiff's claim of title, and since the defendants Pohl and intervenor Price did not cross-appeal, the sole question presented is whether plaintiff has title to the disputed area.
Plaintiff claimed title to the disputed area by a deed dated January, 1954, from the executors of one Dugan estate and also from a number of heirs and legatees of one Hiram C. Dugan. The Dugan family had owned the northwest quarter of section 20 since 1865, and in 1919 they quieted title to all of the northwest quarter of section 20 except 30 acres in a square in the southwest corner, which had previously been conveyed to another party. Although the record does not indicate the acreage of the northwest quarter when judgment was rendered quieting title, the parties concede that sometime between 1917 and 1919 most of the northwest quarter of section 20 was in existence. As indicated, the trial court did not decree ownership of the disputed area but found that defendants Pohl were in possession. For the purpose of this opinion, it is unnecessary to set forth the conflicting claims of defendants Pohl and intervenor Price except to note that each claimed title to the southwest quarter of section 17 and ownership to the disputed area as accretions thereto.
The land in question is low river-bottom land adjacent to the Missouri river and has grown up to rank brush, timber, and weeds.
*679 
*680 This court has previously described similar land as "low bottom-land, of the peculiar formation which characterizes the valley of the Missouri river in this region, and subject to the vicissitudes which result from the conduct of that capricious stream." (Fowler v. Wood, 73 Kan. 511, 513, 85 Pac. 763.) It has been characteristic of this river to change its course in periods of high water by either the process of avulsion or gradual and imperceptible erosion or encroachment. Such action by the Missouri river is the cause of this controversy.
Preliminary to the consideration of plaintiff's contention that the findings and judgment of the trial court were not supported by substantial competent evidence, we note the rule of this jurisdiction that findings of fact made by the trial court upon conflicting testimony will not be disturbed on appellate review where there is competent evidence to sustain the findings. (Brent v. McDonald, 180 Kan. 142, 151, 300 P.2d 396, and cases therein cited.) Plaintiff's objection to those findings and judgment is stated in his brief as follows:
The evidence before the court below consisted of oral testimony introduced by all of the parties, and numerous official charts, maps and aerial photographs prepared by the Surveyor General's Office, the Missouri River Commission, the Corp of Engineers of the United States Army, and the United States Department of Agriculture, the admission of which without formal proof was agreed to by the parties at a pre-trial conference. Neither party requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, but in announcing its decision the trial court made the following findings of fact:
No useful purpose would be served by detailing the evidence before the trial court but suffice it to say we have thoroughly reviewed that evidence and find it ample to support the findings that plaintiff's predecessors lost title to the northeast corner of the northwest quarter of section 20 between 1917 and 1922 by the process of gradual and imperceptible erosion by the Missouri river; that a bar or island subsequently formed in the bed of the river in section 17 which was extended into the original boundaries of plaintiff's land by accretions, and became the disputed area as shown by the aerial map heretofore set forth; and, that plaintiff's northeast boundary remained at the slough which separated his land from the disputed area.
It is well settled at common-law that where the bank of a navigable stream which constitutes the boundary of a tract of land is gradually and imperceptibly changed by erosion, the bank as so changed remains the boundary line of that tract of land. Thus, every owner whose land is so bounded is subject to loss by the same means which may add to his property, and he is without remedy for his loss of such portions as are eroded or washed away or encroached upon by the water. (Wood v. Fowler, 26 Kan. 682, 40 Am. Rep. *682 330; Peuker v. Canter, 62 Kan. 363, 63 Pac. 617; McBride v. Steinweden, 72 Kan. 508, 512, 83 Pac. 822; Fowler v. Wood, supra, 6 L.R.A. [n.s.] 162, 117 Am. St. Rep. 534; 56 Am. Jur. Waters, § 477, p. 892; 93 C.J.S. Waters, § 80, p. 754.)
Plaintiff contends that this case is controlled by the statement in the opinion of Intfen v. Hutson, supra, that where land is lost by avulsion, in order for plaintiff to become the owner of the reappearing land, that land must have reappeared within the limits of the land taken away by avulsion. The contention lacks merit for two reasons: First, plaintiff's predecessors lost title to the northeast corner of the northwest quarter of section 20 by the process of gradual and imperceptible erosion, and that which was formerly their land became the bed of the river, title to which vested in the state (Wood v. Fowler, supra), and second, if it be conceded that plaintiff's land was lost by avulsion, the statement relied upon in Intfen v. Hutson, supra, would be of no avail to him since the island of which the disputed area became a part, was formed outside the original boundaries of the northwest quarter of section 20.
As in Intfen v. Hutson, supra, the situation disclosed by this record is controlled by Fowler v. Wood, supra, wherein it was held:
Under the facts and the law applicable thereto, the boundary line of the northeast corner of plaintiff's land was the slough existing between that land and the disputed area.
In a quiet title action plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title and not upon the weakness of his adversary. (Ordway v. Cowles, 45 Kan. 447, 450, 25 Pac. 862.) As previously indicated, the trial court concluded that plaintiff had neither title nor possession to the disputed area, and we think that conclusion correct. The question of the ownership of the disputed area has not been resolved, and we make no decision concerning it in this opinion.
Plaintiff further contends that the trial court erred in not permitting him to introduce additional testimony on his motion for a new trial. When that motion was heard the transcript was not available for examination. After having examined the transcript, plaintiff *683 concedes that the evidence offered would have been merely cumulative. Moreover, plaintiff submitted the case without asking opportunity to produce further testimony, and thus, the issue was closed. This point was decided in Wagon Co. v. Wilson, 79 Kan. 633, 101 Pac. 4, wherein it was held:
We have reviewed the record and conclude that plaintiff failed to establish title to or possession of the disputed area. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.