52 EL DORADO V. RITCHIE GROCERY COMPANY. [84 EL DORADO v. RITCHIE GROCERY COM PA Op . m ion delivered July 15. 1907. ADVERSE POSSESSION—STREET OF CIT y .—Adverse possession of a street of :. an incorporated-town for the statutory period will give title to the occupant and bar the town. • Appeal from' Union Chancer y Court ; Emit 0. Mahoney., Chancellbr ; affirmed. -Bunn, Patterson, for appellant. • On the question of acquiring title by adverse possession .against the city after the dedication to it, this case is controlled by 58 Ark. 142. See also 42 Ark. 118. One who is in. the enjoyment of an easement can not plead the statute 'of limitations by adverse possession against another who holds under an easement not inconsistent with the right of the claimant. 54 Ark. 6o8. Smead & Powell, for appellee. 58 Ark. 142, relied on by appellant, is not iti point. Wright's possession in that case was consistent with the right of •the city, and there was no act on his part in his lifetime, or by his heirs, giving notice to the city of any intention to deny its rights.
ARN.] EL DoIt.\ RITCFIIE GROCERY COMPANY. 53 For the distinction between a stranger and a vendor in such cases, see 69 Ark. 567. This case is controlled b y 41 Ark. 52. See also 58 Ark. 156: 75 Ark. 514: 9 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law (2 Ed.), 51. avrar, J. The propert y in controversy in this suit is a certain strip of land, sixt y feet wide, in the incorporated town of El Dorado, in this State, and is claimed by that town as a street. On the 13th da y of April. 1892, C. W. Smith, T. Aloore and his wife, S. E. boore, being the ■,wners thereof. donated it to the incorporated town of El Dorado for street purposes. A condition of this donation was as follows: "This property was dedicated to the town on condition solely that it was- to be surveyed, laid out as streets, opened and put< in good conffition, as streets, and kept up and worked as such; and when the town failed or refused to keep them up as such streets, the y are to revert to the present owners and donors or their assigns or, successors." The town failing to survey, lay out or open it as a street for about two years, C. NV. Smith, T. j. Moore, and Mrs. S. E. Moore conveyed it and other lands, on the Sth day of March, 1894, to R. A. Faulkner, who on the t7t11 day of February , 1893. convey ed one-half of it to NV. M. Green, who and Faulkner, on the 4th dav of May, 1903, conveyed to W. W. Brown and John C. Ritchie, who in 1903 conveyed it to Ritchie Grocer y Company. The last grantee and those under whom it holds have held actual, open, continuous. hostile, exclusive, adverse possession of it for more than seven years, building and constructing lasting, permanent and valuable improvements on the same. By this means it acquired title to the property. The town of El Dorado insists that it is entitled to bold the property under Little Rock v. Wright, 58 Ark. 142. In that case this court beld : "Where a city has accepted the dedication of a public street, subsequent continued possession by the dedi-cator will not be presumed adverse to the city, nor the city's right lost by delay for more than seven years in opening up the street for public use, in the absence of proof of adverse holding." In Ft. Smith v. McKibbirr, 41 Ark. 45, it was held that "municipal corporations are bound, as individuals are, by the
54 [84 statute of limitations, and adverse possession of an alle y in a city for .the statutory period will give title to the occupant and bar the city." In Helena v. Hornor, 58 Ark. 151, this ruling was approved and followed. In Graham v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 69 Ark. 562, the distinction between cases like Little Rock v. Wright, 58 Ark. 142, and cases like this is pointed out as follows: "The distinction between a vendor and a stranger in such a case relates to the cHaracter of evidence necessary to show that the possession was adverse. If the parties are strangers in title, possession and the exercise of acts of ownership are, in themselves, in the absence of explanatory evidence, proof that the holding is adverse ; whereas, if the vendor, after having executed deed, continues to remain in possession, the natural and reasonable inference, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, would be that he holds in recognition of the rights of the person to whom he has conveyed ; it not being supposed. from mere acts of possession and ownership not inconsistent with the rights of the vetidee, that the vendor intends to deny the title he has conveyed." In tf;is case the possession was held by strangers. 'Decree affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.