Court Opinion

ID: 9830828
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:32:15.512793+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:27.344167
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Motion, for Rehearing.
[4] Appellant insists, and we agree, that there is no reason why an individual and the state should not own land in common. Therefore appellant further insists, and we agree, that the statement to the contrary in the opinion disposing of the appeal is erroneous. But that the law is otherwise than it’was stated to be in the opinion does' not, we think, require a disposition to be made of the appeal differing from the one already made of it; for while, it is conceded, land can be so owned, it is plain, we think, that the land in controversy here was not so owned by appellant and the state. 38 Oyc. 3, 4. Appellant did not own a part undivided and the state a part undivided of the respective surveys, but appellant owned all of one of them and the state all of the other.
The motion is overruled.