Reno and Jeanette Reno, husband and wife; C. May 29,
That character of possession is not sufficient for prescriptive title purposes. Casity and Edna T. Reno had caused to be made. The next Spring after Reno purchased the property frequently hereinafter referred to as the "East Property"he decided to build a hog wire fence to form a yard around the house thereon, with foot dimensions, and caused a survey to be made of his western property line.
See Maloy v. The proof thus upholds defendant's theory that the statutory limitation period barred his alleged cause of action for reformation of said deed. This line bisects plaintiff's driveway, and the land lying within its curve, so that the deed purported to convey the land east of it to the grantees, seekihg younger Diems. In accord with the foregoing, the judgment virgkl the trial court is hereby affirmed. According seekinng the testimony, this deed was executed by plaintiff and his wife and delivered to Virgil and his wife, but was never recorded; and no one appears to know what became of it.
After his acknowledgment of filing of such a pleading, he was further interrogated as follows: "Q Now, you discovered that there was some difference between you and Mr. This one involved the ownership of apricots, growing on the driveway curve area.
SS Hert Trucking donates semi to Western Nevada College
Tillman, Fred A. Smith, Okl. Newsletter up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements. This action was later dismissed, and plaintiff then instituted the present one in February,seeking similar relief, and naming Virgil Diem and the William Renos, as well as the Casitys, as defendants.
Create a Job Alert
Diem that you were using that as your own property or just as a neighbor? Tillman, Don Hampton, Pawhuska, for defendants in error, C. If the judgment appealed from may be upheld on any theory plead and proved, it must stand.
It was homesteaded by plaintiff in error's father, but, a few years before he died inhe agreed to divide it between plaintiff in error hereinafter referred to as plaintiffand another son and daughter in parcels of 33, 40, and 60 acres, respectively. Shortly thereafter, in May,Reno disclosed to plaintiff what the survey had shown, but did not personally interrupt plaintiff's use, and possession, of the driveway, or the land lying within its curve.
Personal Injury Related Practice Areas
In all of these deeds, said real estate was described exactly as it was in the aforementioned one of December 22, See Howard v. Virgli, Okl. In the alternative, plaintiff therein sought reformation of his aforementioned deed to his son, Virgil, and his wife. In the warranty deed, dated August 27,which they delivered to Reno, the boundaries of the property were described exactly as they were in the aforementioned deed said grantors obtained from plaintiff on December 22,as aforesaid.
Highways 99 and firgil, about a mile west of Clevelan, Oklahoma. As hereinbefore shown, there was testimony reasonably supporting the conclusion that before the fifteenth anniversary of the commencement of plaintiff's possession and use of the plot of ground involved, it lost its exclusive character and became, and remained thereafter until he was finally barred therefrom, a mixed, or shared, possession and use.
Single Bixby Gay Guys Seeking Truckers Interested In Gay Trucker Dating
Casity and his truckefs, acquired said real estate in December, Reno and Jeanette Reno, husband and wife; C. About the time Virgil and his wife moved to Henderson, Kentucky, inthey sold their home to one William L. Despite this, plaintiff continued to use both the driveway and the land within its curve. In the late Summer or Fall ofplaintiff and the Casitys became involved in another controversy.
Dunkleman, Okl. Banks Diem v.
For reversal, he advances two propositions. In February,plaintiff's father conveyed to him the 33 acres he promised to give him, and later, the same year, plaintiff, using virgip own measurements, drew up a deed to Virgil and his wife, in his own handwriting, covering a plot of ground around the latter's house and extending to the highway, for the purpose of giving them that part of the property as a Christmas present.
Please In or Register
See Mahan v. John L.
In this present action, the Casitys filed an answer and cross petition, in which they alleged, inter alia, that plaintiff's alleged cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations. Reno and Jeanette Reno. Shortly thereafter, the Casitys had their west boundary surveyed and this survey showed the boundary line to be the same as revealed by the hereinbefore mentioned survey Mr. In anticipation of this division, plaintiff and his wife, together with plaintiff's son, Virgil Diem, and his wife, Myril, inmoved houses from Cleveland onto the 33 acres promised to plaintiff; and established homes there.
I pd where vifgil fence line was. After subsequent conveyances of the East Property from Reno to one Rex Cruzen and his wife, and mesne conveyances unnecessary to mention, one C.
Reno and his wife, was effected by a deed dated June 12, ; and that Mr. Ledbetter, Cleveland, for defendants in error, William L. Nor does plaintiff's contention that the trial court's judgment is also contrary to, or against the clear weight of, the evidence as to his alleged seekung of action for prescriptive title, demonstrate reversible error. As to related matters, see also Hays Trucking Co. Thereafter, these owners became involved with plaintiff in a controversy over a natural gas line that originally furnished gas for the dwellings of plaintiff, the younger Truckerz, and another neighbor.
May 29, Reno back shortly after August 27th,did you not? The Casitys thereupon erected a wire fence or barrier on that line; and plaintiff has ever since been deprived of the use of the ground east of said line for all purposes, including those of a driveway. Upholding this contention, and agreeing with plaintiff as to the incorrectness of the trial judge's oral remark from the Bench that plaintiff had not discharged his burden of proof on that point, would avail plaintiff nothing under the circumstances.