Court Opinion

ID: 9551913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:02:03.454865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:04.722102
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Justice
(dissenting).
I do not contend that at some time in the distant past there may not have been an acquiescence between owners to the effect that the boundary line'was as now claimed by the plaintiff. However that may be, this plaintiff has never had any right to the disputed strip of land. His predecessor Barrett bought 27% feet of the land, which was the width of all lots in the area, and knew at the time that his land went only to the surveyor’s button in the sidewalk which marked the true boundary line of his property.
When he sold to this plaintiff he sold the 27% feet and no more. Barrett testified in this case and stated positively that he had never claimed any part of the disputed strip of land.
If there was any acquiescence in the old fence line as the true boundary between the properties, the title to the disputed strip is in someone who owned plaintiff’s land prior to 1937, since it was not conveyed to Barrett nor to this plaintiff.
The trial court heard the evidence in this case and found as a fact the following:
There was never any dispute between predecessors in interest of defendants or *38predecessors in interest of plaintiff. There was no uncertainty as to the true location of the boundary line, and Mr.
Barrett well knew that said fence was between 4.1 and S feet South of his property line or the boundary line as defined by a rivet in the sidewalk.
Under established principles of law the findings and judgment of the trial court should be affirmed unless there is no evidence to sustain them.1 In this case, I think the findings are sustained and so I would affirm the judgment as made.

. Charlton v. Haekett, 11 Utah 2d 389, 360 P.2d 176; De Vas v. Noble, 13 Utah 2d 133, 369 P.2d 290.