Skip to main content
· 1/7/1911

Edwards v. Fleming

Citations

  • 83 Kan. 653
  • 112 P. 836
  • 1911 Kan. LEXIS 214

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Adverse Possession — Mistake as to Boundary — Intention. The real test as to whether or not possession of real estate beyond the true boundary line will be held adverse is the intention with which the party takes and holds the possession. It is not merely the existence of a mistake, but the presence or absence of the requisite intention to claim title, that fixes the character of the entry and determines whether the possession is adverse.</p> <p>2. - Presumptions Arising from Possession of Real Estate. Among the presumptions which usually obtain with respect to the possession of real estate are these: (1) It is presumed that the possession is in subordination to the true title; (2) where one enters into possession under a deed it is presumed that he claims only the title given him by his deed and that his possession is restricted to the premises granted.</p> <p>3. -- Mistake as to Boundary — Intention. Where a fence is believed to be the true boundary and the claim of ownership is up to the fence as located, if the intent to claim title exists only on the condition that the fence is on the true line the intention is not absolute, but conditional, and the possession is not adverse. (Scott v. Williams, 74 Kan. 448.) If, however, in such a case there is a clear intention to claim the land up to the fence, whether it be the correct boundary or not, the possession will be held adverse.</p> <p>4. Estoppel — Acquiescence in Possession of Real Estate — Intention — Adverse Possession. In an action to quiet title the plaintiff claimed under deeds to himself and his immediate grantor, executed by the defendants, which described the land • conveyed as bounded on the south by a hedge fence. The plaintiff and his grantor had been in the actual possession of . the land claiming title up to the fence for more than fifteen years, during which time the defendants continued to own the land adjoining on the south, but made no claim to land north of t

Judges: Porter

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.