297 F.2d 438 | D.C. Cir. | 1961
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting).
Appellees, defendants in the District Court, built a cinder block wall some three feet onto the adjoining lot of their neighbors, along the rear part of the boundary between the two lots. My reference to the lots is as they are shown on the official surveys and plats and as they are described in the deeds. The cinder block wall was built when the owners of the lot which was later conveyed to appellants were not living on the premises. When appellants became the owners and learned of the true boundary between the lots they sought an adjustment of the matter with appellees. Failing in this they sued appellees to obtain removal of the cinder block wall which encroached upon their lot. Appellees defended on the basis that they had acquired title to the disputed land by adverse possession. This defense rested upon their claim that they had built the cinder block wall along the line of a wire fence which had been in existence for the statutory period necessary to support their claim of adverse possession.
. 12 D.C.Code § 201 (1961). And see 16 D.C.Code § 1501 (1961).
. Thus, the witness Baker, who identified the photograph now to be referred to, and who gave it the interpretation I do, said the wire fence extended in a continuous straight line, straight back from the brick wall.
. See note 2 supra.
Lead Opinion
The District Court found that the appellees had become entitled by adverse possession to a strip of land along the boundary between their property and the appellants’ property. The case turned on a question of fact regarding the former location of a fence. Neither the testimony nor any of the accompanying photographs appears to us to put the answer beyond doubt, and we do not think the District Court’s finding clearly erroneous.
Affirmed.