Court Opinion

ID: 9676004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:12:09.687634+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:42.432005
License: Public Domain

J. Fred Jones, Justice-, dissenting. I agree that the petition for clarification was correctly treated as a petition for rehearing in this case and I agree that the petition was properly granted. I do not agree with the majority in denying to the appellants the title and possession of the land .they bought and paid for and to which they proved their record title at the trial of this case. The effect of the majority .opinion as I view it, is to divest appellants of the proven title to a part of their land simply because they argued in their printed briefs that they claimed more land by accretion than they proved by purchase and failed to argue the record title to the land their deeds called for. It is my position that when this court tries, a case de. novo on appeal from a Chancery Court it should do so on the record and not on the briefs. I can abide a rule of practice .that would prevent an appellant from adding land to his record title on a theory not argued in his brief, but I cannot abide a rule that would divest a proven record title in a case where more land is claimed by accretion than is proven by deed of conveyance simply because the theory of acquisition by accretion is argued in the brief rather than the fact of acquisition by deed of purchase as proven in the record. Appellants proved their title to the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 33 by deed of conveyance and also proved their title to that portion of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of section 33 south of the so-called chute which was formerly considered the Arkansas River. If any part of Beaver Dam Island falls within the boundary lines of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter as the exhibits in the record indicate that it does, it is my opinion the appellants should be awarded possession of the lands enclosed within such boundaries even if they did acquire it by purchase as proven at the trial rather than by accretion as argued in their briefs. If appellees have cut and sold timber from any of this land, it is my opinion that the amount of timber cut should be determined and damages awarded. I agree that the activities of the U.S. engineers in the area of this land either past, present or future have nothing to do with this lawsuit. I would award possession of the above described lands to the appellants as prayed in their complaint and would remand for a determination of damages for timber, if any, cut and sold from said lands.