{ "id": 8721631, "name": "Aaron K. Wyatt v. Clyde Griffin and Mabel Griffin", "name_abbreviation": "Wyatt v. Griffin", "decision_date": "1967-05-08", "docket_number": "5-4199", "first_page": "562", "last_page": "565", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "242 Ark. 562" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "414 S.W.2d 377" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "210 Ark. 743", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8724131 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1946, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/210/0743-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 S. W. 53", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "year": 1900, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "69 Ark. 34", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8719397 ], "year": 1900, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/69/0034-01" ] }, { "cite": "222 Ark. 331", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1652821 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/222/0331-01" ] }, { "cite": "232 Ark. 760", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1694013 ], "weight": 4, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/232/0760-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 359, "char_count": 5531, "ocr_confidence": 0.492, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.630202327013341e-08, "percentile": 0.5273737966962553 }, "sha256": "c3d15e01d073ee3c22701eaa2aecd47e395b483c6b79a7912763b213bcbd7c26", "simhash": "1:ec80b77e7f9cf598", "word_count": 966 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:00:12.038660+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Ward, J., not participating." ], "parties": [ "Aaron K. Wyatt v. Clyde Griffin and Mabel Griffin" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "CoNley Byrd, Justice.\nAppellant, Aaron K. Wyatt, appeals from an order of the trial court dismissing upon demurrer his action in ejectment against appel-lees Clyde Griffin and Mabel Griffin. The amended complaint alleges that appellant is the owner of the E 1/2, SW Frl 1/4, Sec. 23, T-12-N, R-5-W. Attached to the original complaint was a series of conveyances within the Wyatt family dating back to 1941. Paragraphs VI and VII of the complaint alleged as follows:\n\u201cThat the lands in question were the subject of litigation between plaintiff\u2019s predecessors in interest and the defendants\u2019 grantors. The boundary line was fixed by the Supreme Court of Arkansas in the case of Wyatt v. Wycough, 232 Ark. 760, 341 S. W. 2d 18, establishing the defendants\u2019 grantors interest in property in the area as the land in Section 26, Township 12 North, Range 5 West, all lying in Independence County, Arkansas.\n\u201cThat notwithstanding the plaintiff\u2019s ownership and possession of the lands as aforesaid the defendants have, since the boundary line was fixed, without the consent or knowledge of the plaintiff, built and are maintaining a fence from a point 293 feet north of the said Section line for a distance of approximately 810 feet across plaintiff\u2019s property.\u201d\nThe prior boundary judgment, affirmed by this court in Wyatt v. Wycough, 232 Ark. 760, 341 S. W. 2d 18, (1960) found that appellees were the owners and entitled to immediate possession of the NE Erl of the NW Frl, Sec. 26, T-12-N, R-5-W; that the north line of ap-pellees\u2019 property was the line surveyed by Hon. Clyde Griffin, County Surveyor, along which a fence was erected; and that appellees were entitled to possession of the lands immediately to the south, bounded on the east by the East line of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 26 and on the west and south by the old river bed.\nAppellfees contend that to state a cause of action in ejectment or to avoid a plea of res judicata it was necessary for appellant to allege in his complaint \u201cthat appellees were possessing land north of the line surveyed by Hon. Clyde Griffin, County Surveyor, along which a fence was erected.\u201d On this point, we hold that the complaint was sufficient to state a cause of action in ejectment. The complaint obviously alleges that appel-lees have built a fence north of the boundary line established by the judgment in Wyatt v. Wycough.\nAppellees also take the position that the complaint is insufficient, in that appellant's documents of title give him title only to that portion of the SW 1/4 of Sec. 23 which was originally in \u201c-Crow\u201d Island; and that since the complaint does not deraign title to the 9.09-acre swamp land tract in the SE part of the SW Frl 1/4 of Sec. 23 east of the river which would have adjoined appellees\u2019 l\u00e1nds on the north, the complaint does not comply with Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 34-1408 (Repl. 1962).\nTo adequately understand appellees\u2019 contention one needs to know that when the land was first surveyed in 1826, the portion of the NW 1/4 lying east of the river constituted a parcel of only 8.8 acres or less; and that immediately north of the parcel now claimed by appellees, the 1826 government survey showed a 9.09-acre tract in the SE part of the SW Frl 1/4 of Sec. 23 east of the river. According to the 1826 survey, the descriptions set forth in appellant\u2019s muniments of title would have been in an island located somewhat in the center of Sec. 23. Since that time, the river has migrated eastward until all of the lands in question are west of the river and connected to the lands originally in the island, which is referred to in the briefs as \u201cCrow\u201d Island.\nAppellees\u2019 last position, with respect to the SE part of the SW Frl quarter east of the river, would be well taken except for tlie fact tliat the government survey shows that appellees\u2019 land at the time of the government survey was also east of the river, while the judgment in Wyatt v. Wycough, upon which they now rely as being res judicata, shows their lands in Sec. 26 to now be west of the river. In this situation we have, held that when land along a navigable stream is washed away by the gradual action of the river, the land call is forever washed away, and a conveyance by such description thereafter is ineffective. Adkisson v. Starr, 222 Ark. 331, 260 S. W. 2d 956 (1953). Furthermore, if the land adjoining appellees\u2019 on the north were added to \u201cCrow\u201d Island by accretion, it would then be conveyed and properly described by the description under which appellant received his title. Towell v. Etter, 69 Ark. 34, 63 S. W. 53 (1900).\nIt has been suggested that appellant\u2019s complaint was defective because it did not deraign title back to the United States government or plead adverse possession for the necessary period. We believe that, construing the complaint liberally as we should upon the demurrer, it can be understood as pleading prior peaceable possession in appellant. We have held that a plaintiff in ejectment can recover as against a mere trespasser invading the actual possession of the plaintiff. Since the record is here on demurrer and there is nothing to show any title to the disputed tract in appellees, we hold that the complaint is sufficient to force appellees to plead. Vanndale Special School Dist. No. 6 v. Feltner, 210 Ark. 743, 197 S. W. 2d 731 (1946).\nReversed and remanded.\nWard, J., not participating.", "type": "majority", "author": "CoNley Byrd, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Chapman & Wil&y, for appellant.", "Murphy & Arnold, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Aaron K. Wyatt v. Clyde Griffin and Mabel Griffin\n5-4199\n414 S. W. 2d 377\nOpinion delivered May 8, 1967\nChapman & Wil&y, for appellant.\nMurphy & Arnold, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0562-01", "first_page_order": 584, "last_page_order": 587 }