Court Opinion

ID: 9831397
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:03:23.197732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:34.302044
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Motion for a Rehearing.
It is insisted that the issue between the parties was as to title alone, and that in disposing of the a.ppeal on the theory that the controversy was as to the location on the ground of the boundary line between the tracts the parties respectively owned, this court rested its decision “on an issue neither claimed, pleaded or thought of by either party to the suit.” Evidently appellant did not have in mind his own pleadings and those of appellee when he made the charge.
In his petition, after describing the 101% acres he sued for by metes and bounds, appellant alleged that—
“One of the calls is left out of the south line of said land, and a mistake is made in the description of his said land, and his boundaries are not perfect as between him and the defendant Grover Wood.”
And he prayed that he “have judgment for his land and premises and for a writ of possession, and further prays for a decree establishing his said boundary line and fully determining the same ás between himself and the said Grover Wood.”
In his answer appellee disclaimed as to all the land sued for, except the part thereof included “inside of his inclosure,” and alleged that those under whom he and appellant claimed “long prior to the acquiring of title *888by this plaintiff and this defendant, by their ancestors in title, had agreed on the hound' ary line between the two tracts in controversy in this suit, and had divided said land, placing the boundary line between said tracts where the partition fence now runs dividing said tracts; that defendant’s and plaintiff’s ancestors in title have recognized said line for more than 20 years, and have used, cultivated and enjoyed, cleared and worked the land on each side of said agreed partition for more than 20 years, and that this plaintiff is now estopped from asserting an adverse title as against said agreed partition,” and further alleged that—
“In about 1912 or 1913, plaintiff’s ancestors in title and the defendant’s immediate ancestors in title brought a friendly suit to remove cloud from the title by reason of the outside apparent interest of some old heirs, each of whom recovered in said suit the lands as described in their respective deeds, both the plaintiff’s and defendant’s and subsequent to said judgment, it having been ascertained between plaintiff’s ancestors in title and defendant’s ancestors in title that the boundary line established by the said survey should be the agreed boundary line, and that plaintiff’s ancestors in title were to own all the land on his side of said agreed boundary line, and the defendant’s ancestor in title was to own all the land on his side of said boundary line, and that each of said joint owners recognized the ownership of the other in said lands, and relying upon said agreements they improved, used, cultivated and enjoyed the lands on each side of said agreed boundary, and that he, th'e plaintiff, is now estopped from asserting any kind of title as against said agreed partition. Further, defendant charges that neither of the deeds of the defendant’s ancestor in title describe any land that can be identified on the ground by a competent surveyor. That the field notes are ambiguous, both in plaintiff’s deed and defendant’s deed, but the boundary line as has been recognized for more than 20 years dividing said land was agreed to and accepted by plaintiff’s immediate ancestor in title and defendant’s ancestor in title, and is now the true boundary line, and this plaintiff is estopped from asserting title to any of the defendant’s land Or altering or changing the agreed boundary.”
The motion is overruled.