For Your Data Marengo Cave Co. V. Ross Representative Brief
September 01, 2019
Edit
Marengo Cave Co. v. Ross illustration brief summary
10 N.E.2d 917 (1937)
CASE FACTS
The landowner brought an activeness to serenity his championship against the cave owner's claim that it owned all of the cave including the constituent that extended underneath the landowner's property.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The lawsuit courtroom ruled inwards favor of the landowner together with denied the cave owner's displace for a novel trial. The cave possessor claimed it had championship to the constituent of the cave that extended underneath the landowner's belongings past times adverse possession. The appellate courtroom transferred the illustration to the court.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The courtroom affirmed the lawsuit court's determination inwards favor of the province possessor that he had championship to the constituent of the cave that extended underneath his land.
Suggested police describe schoolhouse report materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.
10 N.E.2d 917 (1937)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant cave possessor sought review of a determination of the Crawford Circuit Court (Indiana), which ruled inwards favor of appellee adjoining landowner inwards his activeness to serenity championship against the cave owner's claim that it owned all of the cave including a constituent of the cave that extended nether the landowner's property.CASE FACTS
The landowner brought an activeness to serenity his championship against the cave owner's claim that it owned all of the cave including the constituent that extended underneath the landowner's property.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The lawsuit courtroom ruled inwards favor of the landowner together with denied the cave owner's displace for a novel trial. The cave possessor claimed it had championship to the constituent of the cave that extended underneath the landowner's belongings past times adverse possession. The appellate courtroom transferred the illustration to the court.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the courtroom affirmed the lawsuit court's determination together with held that the cave owner's possession for twenty years or to a greater extent than of that purpose of the cave underlying the landowner's belongings was non open, notorious, or exclusive, equally required past times the police describe applicable to obtaining championship to province past times adverse possession.
- The courtroom ruled that the fact that the landowner had cognition that the cave possessor was claiming to live on the possessor of the cave together with advertised it to the full general world was no cognition to him that the cave possessor was inwards possession of the landowner's belongings or whatever purpose of it.
- The courtroom held that the statute of limitations did non start out until the landowner discovered that the possession of his belongings had been invaded.
CONCLUSION
The courtroom affirmed the lawsuit court's determination inwards favor of the province possessor that he had championship to the constituent of the cave that extended underneath his land.
Suggested police describe schoolhouse report materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.