Home/Supreme Court of Kansas/Stark v. Meriwether

Stark v. Meriwether

163 P. 152, 99 Kan. 650
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedFebruary 10, 1917
DocketNo. 19,888
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 163 P. 152 (Stark v. Meriwether) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Stark v. Meriwether, 163 P. 152, 99 Kan. 650 (kan 1917).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Porter, J.:

A rehearing was granted upon the complaint of counsel for Meriwether that the former opinion (Stark v. Meriwether, 98 Kan. 10, 157 Pac. 438) overlooked his main contention. Counsel insists that he “relied chiefly, aggressively, and most confidently throughout the entire litigation upon one specific and most prominent fact which appeared in the findings of the trial court.” The complaint then proceeds:

“And this was the omission. The findings refer to the Coulter map thereto attached. The fifth finding refers to island ‘B’ as shown on [651]*651said map. . The island as shown by the map was right there, directly in front of the Stark land, before any accretions began to form, and directly between Stark’s frontage and the land in dispute, and 700 feet nearer to the Stark land than was the land in dispute. The question was, whether or not the land in dispute was an accretion to Stark’s original frontage. The Coulter map also shows that island ‘B’ as originally formed, and before any accretion began, extended both farther upstream and farther downstream than did the Stark frontage. Also the court shows that island ‘B’ never washed away, but continued to grow eastwardly. Your opinion gives the findings except that they do not show the Coulter map. Consequently, the size and location of the island ‘B’ as herein stated, upon which my contention was based, are not shown in your opinion. Upon the hearing I earnestly- contended that this island' ‘B,’ permanently located as it was, and lying directly in front of the Stark land as it did, and extending as it did both higher up and lower down than Stark’s frontage, and this too, before accretions began forming, was an insuperable obstacle in the way of accretions advancing from the Stark lands in the direction of the lands in dispute which lay 700 feet still farther east.”

This action was commenced October 16, 1906. Meriwether’s answer, filed in December, 1907, set up a general denial, a claim of possession of the lands in dispute, and the further claim that there was a suit then pending in the federal court which involved the title and ownership of all the lands described in plaintiff’s petition. On March 11, 1913, and after an amended petition had been filed, an answer was filed for Meriwether by his present counsel, which, after admitting possession of the lands in controversy, denied the other averments of the petition, set up the fifteen-year statute, of limitations, and further alléged that “the land in controversy is an accretion to an island which arose in the bed of the Missouri river, to which island the defendant had title and which never belonged to plaintiff.” The island mentioned in the answer, was obviously the one referred to in the evidence and findings as the Howe Island, or “Island A.” However, we shall assume that the answer is broad enough to include not only that particular island, but any other to which the defendant could show that the lands accreted. A copy of so much of the Coulter map as is necessary to show the locality and surroundings is reproduced on page 652.

[652]

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

Related

Schiffelbein v. Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth
374 P.2d 42 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1962)
Kininmonth v. Carson
137 P.2d 173 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1943)
Wolf v. Rich
121 P.2d 270 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1942)
Swisher v. McMain
110 P.2d 765 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1941)
State ex rel. Parker v. City of Kansas City
98 P.2d 101 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1940)
De Boe v. Prentice Packing Storage Co.
20 P.2d 1107 (Washington Supreme Court, 1933)
Gage v. Leslie
231 P. 841 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1925)
Lillard v. Board of County Commissioners
172 P. 518 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
163 P. 152, 99 Kan. 650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stark-v-meriwether-kan-1917.