Edwards v. Ogle

76 Ind. 302
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1881
DocketNo. 8021
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 76 Ind. 302 (Edwards v. Ogle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Edwards v. Ogle, 76 Ind. 302 (Ind. 1881).

Opinion

Newcomb, C.

This was an action for the recovery of real ■estate, brought by Marshal N. Ogle and the appellees other than Bethia L. Ogle, against the appellant. Since the judgment Marshal N. Ogle has died, and the name of Bethia L. Las been added to the record as one of his heirs.

The facts in the case, and the legal questions involved, ¡sufficiently appear in the special finding of facts and conclusions of law, of which we copy all that bears on the questions either of law or fact, as follows :

“That, on- 1858, the United States issued to Alfred M. Ogle a patent for the land described as the west half of the south-west quarter of section six, in township six north, in range six west, in Greene county, Indiana; that, in 1851, the United States granted to the State of Indiana, .■as swamp lands, under the laws relating to swamp land, and that afterward, on January 4th, 1854, Alfred M. Ogle purchased of the State of Indiana, the land described as the east half of the south-west quarter of said. section, in Greene county, Indiana, and obtained from the State a patent therefor ; and that the plaintiffs are the owners, by descent from ¡said Alfred M. Ogle, as his .heirs, of the interest in said lands that was vested in said Alfred M. Ogle, by virtue of said patents.
“That the subdivisions of said land, described in said grant and'patents, are the subdivisions as laid off and designated in the original survey of lands in said county, under the directions of the Surveyor General of the United States : that, in the year 1843, a re-survey of said lands was made by Nathaniel L. Squibbs, under the direction of the Surveyor General of the United States, under the act of Congress of March 3d, 1837, 5 U. S. Stat. at Large, p. 170, including in said survey the boundaries of a pond covering a part of ¡said land; that the tract book returned with said survey designated a certain part of said land as the ‘south-west fraction of said section, town and range, containing thirty-[304]*304nine acres, including that part of said quarter section lying south-west of said pond, the boundary and meander lines of which are as follows, to wit: Beginning at the south-west corner of said section six, and running thence, for the west side of said tract, north on the west line of said section thirty-nine chains to said marshy pond, and for the south side, running east from said corner, on the south side of said section, twenty-two chains to said pond, and for the meander line of said pond, running as follows, to wit: Beginning at a point on the west line of said section at a point thirty-nine chains north of the south-west corner of said section six; thence south thirty-five degrees east, eleven chains ; thence south twenty-five degrees east, ten chains ; thence south forty degrees east, five chains; thence south thirty-one degrees east, six and one-half chains ; thence south twenty-four degrees east, seven chains ; thence south forty-seven degrees east, six and ninety hundredths chains, to the south line of said section.’
“That, in the year 1845, the United States granted said land to the Wabash and Erie Canal, by the description of the ‘ south-west fraction’ of section 6, town and range aforesaid,, and that on June 1st, 1869, the Wabash and Erie Canal, by the trustees, sold and conveyed said land, so granted to it, to one Tobias Pope, under whom the defendant claims title by an unbroken chain of deeds, all duly recorded,- and by said deeds the defendant is the owner of the interest granted by the United States to the Wabash and Erie Canal; that the defendant is now in possession of said tract of 39 acres, and he and those under whom he claims have been in possession thereof for eight years last past, and the remaining-portion oPsaid land is now and has always been wild, uncultivated and unoccupied, and not in the actual possession of any one. * * That said land is situated, with reference to a pond, as shown in the following plat, to wit:
[305]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mustanen v. Diamond Coal & Coke Co.
62 P.2d 287 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1936)
Sanders, Jr. v. De Rose
191 N.E. 331 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1934)
Tolleston Club v. Carson
123 N.E. 169 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1919)
State v. Tuesburg Land Co.
109 N.E. 530 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1915)
Kinsella v. Stephenson
265 Ill. 369 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1914)
John Hilt Lake Ice Co. v. Zahrt
62 N.E. 509 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1902)
Tolleston Club v. State
38 N.E. 214 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1894)
Brophy v. Richeson
36 N.E. 424 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1894)
Kirkpatrick v. Yates Ice Co.
45 Mo. App. 335 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1891)
Stoner v. Rice
6 L.R.A. 387 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1889)
Sphung v. Moore
22 N.E. 319 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1889)
State v. Portsmouth Savings Bank
7 N.E. 379 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
76 Ind. 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-ogle-ind-1881.