Court Opinion

ID: 9696641
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:53:42.978272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:24.690701
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
TEIGEN, Judge.
The plaintiffs have petitioned for a rehearing in this case. The petition and supplementary petition show that they have misconstrued the opinion heretofore filed. The decision of this Court does not adjudicate that the land in question is located in either Burleigh County or Morton County.
The action was commenced in Morton County to quiet title to certain lands. The Court’s jurisdiction over the land was dial-*795lenged by a motion to dismiss the action. The defendants, as movants, introduced prima-facie evidence establishing an infer■ence that the Court had no jurisdiction by showing that the main channel of the Missouri River is now located west of the land in question. Applying the statutes establishing county boundaries, this places the land in question in Burleigh County. This evidence shifted the burden of going forward with the evidence to the plaintiffs and we have found that the plaintiffs had failed to sustain the burden. It was for this reason that we sustained the dismissal ordered by the lower court. This does not amount to an adjudication of the case, nor does it ■establish the location of the land and it is without prejudice to the commencement of another suit.
We have again reviewed the evidence introduced by the plaintiffs and again find it does not sustain the burden to rebut the inference. We find the other matters set forth in the petition have no bearing on this decision. For these reasons the petition is denied.
MORRIS, C. J., and STRUTZ, ERICK-STAD and BURKE, JJ„ concur.