{ "id": 1724151, "name": "Tyler Meister v. Albert Reddmann", "name_abbreviation": "Meister v. Reddmann", "decision_date": "1967-01-30", "docket_number": "5-4080", "first_page": "854", "last_page": "857", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "241 Ark. 854" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "410 S.W.2d 769" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "214 Ark. 488", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8722760 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/214/0488-01" ] }, { "cite": "239 S. W. 726", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "153 Ark. 142", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1362228 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/153/0142-01" ] }, { "cite": "205 Ark. 442", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1488256 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/205/0442-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 298, "char_count": 3901, "ocr_confidence": 0.527, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.12982294956584e-08, "percentile": 0.32218229711461943 }, "sha256": "ba1e64f38e64337f8280c77392b846a2f5a2fce4aa0764dac8438a3f65472bbe", "simhash": "1:cfef5f3c925bfc70", "word_count": 670 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:36:03.113111+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Tyler Meister v. Albert Reddmann" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Paul Ward, Justice.\nAppellant, Tyler Meister, filed a complaint in' chancery court to restrain appellee, Albert Eeddmann, from entering upon his land, and to recover the value of timber cut along a ditch located thereon. He also asked to have his title quieted. Appellee admits he cut the timber but claims the ditch in question is a \u201cT\u201d lateral ditch (hereafter referred to as a \u201cditch\u201d), and that it is a part of Drainage District No. 3 of Poinsett County (hereafter referred to as \u201cditch No. 3\u201d), and that he had permission from the Commissioners of ditch No. 3 to enter upon a right-of-way across appellant\u2019s land to cut all timber necessary to protect and clean out the ditch.\nTestimony was taken on the above issues (properly pleaded), and the trial court entered a decree, in substance, as set out below:\nThe ditch is a part of ditch No. 3; appellant\u2019s complaint is dismissed, and; appellant is restrained from interfering with the work being done by appellee.\nFor a reversal appellant sets out several points but some of them are interrelated, and we feel that all material issues can be adequately discussed under two separate groupings:\nOne. Appellant contends \u201cthe trial court erred in finding the ditch in question to be a Drainage District No. 3 ditch\u201d, and that this was a finding in its favor. It is then argued this constituted reversible error because ditch No. 3 was not made a party to this litigation. There is no merit in this argument. In the case of Smith v. Petus, Curator, 205 Ark. 442, 169 S. W. 2d 586, we said:\n\u201cFurthermore, appellants did not, in the lower Court, ask that these adult heirs be made parties and they are, therefore, not in a position to raise this question for the first time on appeal.\u201d\nSee also Arkansas Road Const. Co. v. Evans, 153 Ark. 142, 239 S. W. 726. No such request was made by appellant in the trial court in the case under consideration.\nTwo. It is argued that \u201cthe court erred in basing its decision upon incompetent testimony\u201d. Again we find no merit in appellant\u2019s contention that there is no competent testimony to refute his claim to an absolute fee title to his land (free of any right-of-way) by virtue of the deeds he admittedly received from his predecessors in title. It is undisputed that ditch No. 3 executed quitclaim deeds to appellant\u2019s predecessors in title, showing they were based on tax sales. This being true the deeds amounted to redemptions from tax sales. See: Rouse v. Teeter, 214 Ark. 488, 216 S. W. 2d 869. It necessarily follows that appellant could receive no better title than his grantors held. Any other result would make it possible for a legally organized improvement district to divest itself of all lateral ditches. This disposes of appellant\u2019s contention it was error to allow the Commissioners to testify relative to their intentions in executing said quitclaim deeds. Even if such testimony was hearsay it was irrelevant and unnecessary.\nIn this case it is undisputed that ditch No. 3 was organized in 1908, and that it issued bonds in the amount of $245,000 to construct said ditch and numerous laterals. Also there are copies of numerous county court orders (properly introduced) showing, among other things, the execution of the quitclaim deeds and the location of the ditches. The record reveals the ditch was constructed over appellant\u2019s land many years before he acquired the land which was some twenty years before this suit was filed.\nIn view of what we have said above it is, of course, unnecessary to discuss appellant\u2019s contentions -that the trial court erred in refusing to quiet his title and give him damages, and also erred in enjoining him from further interference.\nThe decree of the trial court is therefore affirmed.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Paul Ward, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Lohnes T. Tiner, for appellant.", "Bice L. Van Ausdall, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Tyler Meister v. Albert Reddmann\n5-4080\n410 S. W. 2d 769\nOpinion delivered January 30, 1967\nLohnes T. Tiner, for appellant.\nBice L. Van Ausdall, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0854-01", "first_page_order": 876, "last_page_order": 879 }