Court Opinion

ID: 9757456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:41:36.43487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:39.559489
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Retired Justice,
Concurring:
I concur in the conclusion reached by Mr. Chief Justice Ellett in the main opinion. Both parties claimed title through Wooley Company. That company owned both tracts, whence the fence possibly could not have been a boundary. This fence was burned a time or two, but fire had nothing much to do with who thought was or was not done to the title. To reject the trial court's conclusion quieting title, in nay opinion is not compelling on the facts here, irrespective of the threadbare Constitutional admonition (Art,. VIII, See.9) about reviewing the facts as well as the law,-a practical bit of legerdemain employed for convenience. Stanley v. Stanley, is a manly primer, but withal the cases to date, the rule seems to have been laid down that on appellate review, the trial court's decision will be affirmed if there is substantial, competent, admissible evidence to support it-whether it be the collective confusion of the jury, or the isolated, appealed and *416therefore disputed interdiction of the court,-be it that of the Chancellor or that of the Common Pleas. I believe that the record cannot stand the test of boundary by acquiescence under the authorities ably collected in an article pertinent to this problem, published in 3 Utah Law Review, 1953, and cases following which easily may be Shepardized and need no citation here, save by reference.