Home/E.D. Arkansas/United States Gypsum Co. v. Uhlhorn

United States Gypsum Co. v. Uhlhorn

232 F. Supp. 994, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9753
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas
DecidedAugust 19, 1964
DocketNo. J 61 C 21
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 232 F. Supp. 994 (United States Gypsum Co. v. Uhlhorn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States Gypsum Co. v. Uhlhorn, 232 F. Supp. 994, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9753 (E.D. Ark. 1964).

Opinion

YOUNG, District Judge.

This diversity of citizenship litigation was filed in this Court by the plaintiff United States Gypsum Company, an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business outside Arkansas, by way of a suit to quiet title to land alleged to have arisen as an island from the bed of the Mississippi River within the State of Arkansas. The defendant Frances Uhlhorn, a citizen and resident of the State of Tennessee, was made a party defendant and service on her was obtained under Rule 4(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

After the pleadings were made up it became apparent that the appointment of a Special Master was necessary and, by agreement of the parties, Honorable Richard B. McCulloch, an attorney of Forrest City, Arkansas, was appointed. After the taking of the proof was concluded,1 he filed an excellent and exhaustive report in which his findings of fact are clearly set forth in detail. In applying his conclusions of law to the facts, he concluded that the lands in controversy arose from the bed of the Mississippi River in the State of Tennessee and that this Court was without jurisdiction. The effect of this conclusion was to rule in favor of the defendant Frances Uhlhorn.

The matter is now before the Court by way of objections to the Master’s Report. The objections of both parties relating to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the Master’s findings of fact are overruled. The objections of both parties to the Master’s conclusions of law raise the following issues:

Issues
I. Does a state line follow a shift in the thalweg, or middle of the main channel of navigation -of a navigable river around a sand bar which is below the ordinary high water mark? (This issue involves an application of federal law and will be discussed hereinafter under the title “The State Line.”)
II. The effect of a statutory change in the method of sale of islands belonging to the State of Arkansas upon the accrued or vested right of a prior applicant to purchase said lands at their appraised value. (This issue involves an application of both state and federal law and will be discussed hereinafter under the title “Act 452 of 1959.”)
III. The capacity of a third person to make a collateral attack on the validity of an island deed issued by the State of Arkansas. (This issue involves an application of state law.)
IV. The accuracy of the Rodgers’ Survey.
I. The State Line

As a result of the avulsion in this area in 1876 and the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Arkansas v. Tennessee, 246 U.S. 158, 38 S.Ct. 301, 62 L.Ed. 638 (1917), Brandywine Island, Arkansas, was, during the time pertinent to the issues involved in this litigation, on the left (or east) bank of the Mississippi River, and Centennial Island, Tennessee, was on the right (or west) bank. The three freehand drawings showing the stages of the River with reference to the tract of land in dispute for the years of 1935, 1937, and 1939 are inserted to assist in better understanding the facts.

[996]

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

Related

Dean and Martha Lowe v. Joseph C. and Joyce A. Richards
763 S.E.2d 64 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2014)
Opinion No.
Arkansas Attorney General Reports, 1990
Arkansas Rural Medical Practice Student Loan & Scholarship Board v. Luter
729 S.W.2d 402 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1987)
United States v. Ilario M.A. Zannino
761 F.2d 52 (First Circuit, 1985)
Lovetro v. United States
602 F. Supp. 574 (S.D. New York, 1984)
United States Gypsum Company v. The Greif Brothers Cooperage Corporation
389 F.2d 252 (Eighth Circuit, 1968)
Frances Uhlhorn v. U. S. Gypsum Company
366 F.2d 211 (Eighth Circuit, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
232 F. Supp. 994, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-gypsum-co-v-uhlhorn-ared-1964.