Court Opinion

ID: 9825621
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:48:28.28176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:13.456087
License: Public Domain

On Behearing. Smith, J. In the petition for rehearing it is insisted that the judgment for the value of the timber, included timber cut on land which the opinion states did not belong to Jarvis. In the opinion we said, “We do not construe this deed as covering all the land in the 40-acre tract north of the certain branch, which branch is the South Branch, or running branch, but only that part of the N% oí the NWhi of the NE]4 which is north of that branch. ’ ’ The insistence now is that the judgment from which is this appeal covers timber cut on land which was in fact south of that branch, which Jarvis did not own. This may be true, but the reason is not clear. At any rate it is not shown how much, if any, of the timber was cut south of the branch. As the judgment is reversed to ascertain what part of the land. Jarvis has lost by adverse possession permission is granted to ascertain also whether any of the timber south of the branch was cut, and if so, the amount and value thereof may be ascertained and the judgment .as to the value of timber cut will be modified by reducing it to the extent of the value of timber cut south of the branch, if any. In other respects the petition for rehearing is overruled.