PATTERSON v. GLASS

Annotate this Case

PATTERSON v. GLASS
1935 OK 1168
55 P.2d 95
176 Okla. 292
Case Number: 25193
Decided: 11/26/1935
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

PATTERSON
v.
GLASS et al.

Syllabus

¶0 1. Waters and Water Courses--Nonnavigable Stream as Boundary Between Riparian Owners--Land Washed Away by Sudden Freshet--Doctrine of Avulsion Applied.
Where a nonnavigable stream is the boundary line between riparian owners, and by a sudden freshet or flood a considerable area of land belonging to one owner is washed away by the current of the river and at the same time land is formed on the opposite bank of the stream, in approximately the same area, the doctrine of avulsion applies, and there is no change in the boundary line. It remains at the place where the middle of the main channel of the stream was before the freshet or flood.
2. Adverse Possession--Essentials of Acquisition of Title to Land by Prescription.
"In order for one to acquire title to real estate by prescription he must have the adverse possession thereof, which must be open, visible, continuous, and exclusive, with a claim of ownership, such as will notify parties seeking information upon the subject that the premises are not held in subordination to any title or claim of others, but against all titles and claimants." Taylor v. Monday, 104 Okla. 241, 231 P. 75.

Appeal from District Court, Logan County; Freeman E. Miller, Judge.

Action between W. K. Patterson and I. D. Glass et al. From adverse judgment, the former appeals. Affirmed.

Bierer & Bierer, for plaintiff in error.
John Adams, Summers Hardy, and Wilcox & Swank, for defendants in error.

RILEY, J.

¶1 The questions of law in this case are the same as in Willett v. Miller et al., No. 24058, 176 Okla. 278, 55 P.2d 90, this day decided.

¶2 The facts concerning the change in the bed of the Cimarron river are almost identical with the facts in the Willett Case.

¶3 The finding of Pact by the trial court is to the effect that the changes in the location of the river bed as shown by the evidence was by avulsion and not by reliction and accretion, and judgment was accordingly to the effect that the boundary lines of the land of the several parties were the same as they existed at the time of the original survey, and that the middle of the channel of the river as it was then located remains the dividing line between the several tracts of land lying on the opposite sides thereof.

¶4 The evidence justifies the findings of fact both as to the changes in the channel of the river and the claim of title by prescription.

¶5 The judgment is therefore affirmed.