{
  "id": 1464505,
  "name": "Garrett v. Musgrave",
  "name_abbreviation": "Garrett v. Musgrave",
  "decision_date": "1949-10-24",
  "docket_number": "4-8935",
  "first_page": "835",
  "last_page": "838",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "215 Ark. 835"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "223 S.W.2d 779"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "208 Ark. 254",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1478632
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/208/0254-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 S. W. 2d 701",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 Ark. 1155",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Ark. 297",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8728227
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/15/0297-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 441,
    "char_count": 6198,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.539,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4520117304350403e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6552538391234393
    },
    "sha256": "465fa035024a7454ccae3e2fb29f0a580611ffd276a8014afa220711200cc911",
    "simhash": "1:037689ac500d00d2",
    "word_count": 1087
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:42:13.131733+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Garrett v. Musgrave."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Griffin Smith, Chief Justice.\nThe appeal results from a disagreement between adjoining landowners regarding the use of a well, but in determining relative rights the Chancellor established a true line. Effect was to quiet title in appellees to a strip thirteen feet wide on the west side of Lot 10, and to create in the disputants a common tenancy in respect of the well as such.\nPrior to 1944 J. P. and Hazel Turner owned Lot 10. By deed of August 28th of that year they conveyed to Harold Sandlin the west thirteen feet. A description note of explanation was: \u201cThis thirteen-ft. [strip] is supposed to run a line in the center of the well now located on Lot No. 10.\u201d The deed was filed for record December 7.\nBy deed of December 7, 1944, the Turners sold to Robert and Lucy Wilkinson \u201cLots 10, 11, and 12,\u201d of Block 7. This deed was- recorded December 15th.\nOn March 13, 1945, the Sandlins delivered to Beuna Garrett their deed conveying \u201c. . . the west thirteen feet of Lot 10.\u201d Following the description, within parentheses, this notation appears: \u201cThe thirteen-ft. [strip] is supposed to run in a line in the center of the well now located on said Lot 10.\u201d\nIt will be seen that when Turner sold to Sandlin, and when Sandlin sold to appellant, the center of the well was thought to be the boundary. Emphasizing this supposition, Robert and Lucy Wilkinson sold to appellees only thirty-seven feet of Lot 10 when on November 17th they transferred Lots 11 and 12 to her.\nLitigation began in December, 1948, when Mrs. Garrett procured from Polk County Court an injunction restraining the Musgraves from using the well. The defendants there were also directed to remove copper piping that had been installed in connection with the proposed mechanical pumping. In dissolving the injunction and awarding to appellant that part of Lot 10 \u201cfrom the center of the well west,\u201d and to appellees \u201cthat part from the well\u2019s center east,\u201d each was given the right of use without interference from the other. There was an express finding that the installation had in no sense contaminated the water, and that its use would not interfere with appellant\u2019s requirements.\nThe Chancellor was warranted in finding that appellant knew of the deed presumptions or suppositions when she acquired the thirteen-ft. strip. Effect of Mrs. Garrett\u2019s testimony relating to the rights of others is that, after the deed had been prepared and a check in payment written, hut before it was cashed, she ascertained the material facts. In her testimony Mrs. Garrett said, \u201cI had paid over the money [before the information was received\u201d], hut she immediately added, \u201cI had written the check.\u201d Sandlin, she explained, told her the well was being jointly used. This mutuality continued until appellees undertook to install the pump.\nThere was testimony that the well had .been in use for approximately forty years, and without exception adjoining proprietors had drawn water under a claim of right, each conceding to the other a like privilege.\nOne of the appellees testified that when ditch-digging was under way preparatory to putting in the pump, Mrs. Garrett objected, hut readily agreed that the dividing line was \u201cthrough the well.\u201d This, she said, was reflected hv the deed.\nFor the purpose of determining how long the well, as an established boundary monument, had been looked to, the Court permitted Sandlin to testify that he had owned the Garrett place, and that Turner had owned the Musgrave property. Turner, said Sandlin was going to sell, \u201c. . . so I propositioned him about buying half of the well. There had been a partition fence between the places\u201d.\nAn early discussion of the extent to which descriptions by metes and bounds will be considered when in conflict with natural monuments or landmarks, is to be found in the opinion of Chief Justice Watkins, Phelps v. Henry & Cunningham, 15 Ark. 297. The principle he expressed, and one generally accepted, is that quantity must yield to course and distance in surveys, and that course and distance shall yield to natural objects or artificial monuments where quantity is not material; but where land is laid off into compact town lots, then quantity is an object of prime importance, and when the survey is according to a regular plan, it is expected that purchasers will buy with reference to it. See Cooper v. Woods, 194 Ark. 1155,110 S. W. 2d 701; Davis v. Strong, 208 Ark. 254, 186 S. W. 2d 776.\nThe controlling consideration is that if buyer and seller, who are familiar with real property, deal with reference to particular things and places they have seen, it must be presumed that these natural objects were of paramount importance, otherwise they would not have contracted with reference to them.\nAlthough in the case at bar town lots and parts are involved, the testimony of all of the interested witnesses shows that the well was an essential. It was the principal objective to which all turned, hence the conclusion is inescapable that no one had in mind the value of a few feet of land other than as a means of reaching the well.\nAffirmed.\nThe true description is Lot 10, Block 7, of the Original Town of Hatfield, Arkansas.\nConstitution, art. 7, \u00a7 37; 3 Ark. Stats. (1947), \u00a7\u00a7 22-435, 32-104.\nFurther testimony by Sandlin in regard to the line was: \u201cWhen Turner and I got out there we found a \u2018place\u2019 as close as we could to what we thought was the old fence between the two places. We \u2018took off\u2019 thirteen feet, and that was supposed to be the old line between \u2014 \u25a0 the center of the well. I put up a corner post. I believe Mrs. Garrett has a hedge that grows up to the well. In other words, the fence comes right to the center of the well. When I sold [Mrs. Garrett] the place Clyde Farmer came down and asked what I wanted for it, and I told him what I would take. When I went out to the car to go home, they said they would buy, and I told them that afternoon that half of the well belonged to her. I bought the extra strip. I first had a lot and a half, then I bought that to get the well.\u201d",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Griffin Smith, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Abe Collins and J. F. Quillin, for appellant.",
      "Shaio S Spencer, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Garrett v. Musgrave.\n4-8935\n223 S. W. 2d 779\nOpinion delivered October 24, 1949.\nAbe Collins and J. F. Quillin, for appellant.\nShaio S Spencer, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0835-01",
  "first_page_order": 857,
  "last_page_order": 860
}
