WebStudy with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Jacques v. Steenburg, Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport, Pierson v. Post and more. WebThe element of notorious possession was explained by our supreme court in McCarty v. Sheets (1981), 423 N.E.2d 297, 301, as follows: ... As explained by our supreme court in Marengo Cave v. Ross (1937), 212 Ind. 624, 627, 10 N.E.2d 917, 920-21: The possession must be open and notorious. The mere possession of the land is not enough.
Marengo Cave Co. v. Ross, 10 N.E.2d 917 (Ind. 1937)
WebMARC JOBIN FROM MADAG VU WebThe intermediate appellate court reversed the trial court and found for Plaintiff, stating that the defenses of expiration of statute of limitations and title by adverse possession were identical, and that the Defendant had not proven the elements of his affirmative defense. The Defendant appealed. Issue. christmas games to play adults
Marengo Cave - Wikipedia
WebThe trial court ruled for Ross, the Marengo Cave Co. appealed, and the Supreme Court of Indiana affirmed. Issue. Whether a 46-year possession of a subterranean cave that … O'Keefe v. Synder83 N.J. 478, 416 A.2d 862 (1980) Anderson v. Gouldberg51 … O'Keefe v. Synder83 N.J. 478, 416 A.2d 862 (1980) Anderson v. Gouldberg51 … Marengo Cave Co. v. Ross212 Ind. 624, 10 N.E.2d 917 (1937) Improving Another's … WebCase: Marengo Cave v. Ross Issue: Is possession of land open and notorious only if it would give clear and unequivocal notice to the true owner or his agent visiting the land that the owner's rights are being invaded? An underground cavern in Indiana stretched over various properties, does it meet the standards of adverse possession? WebMarengo Cave was established in Indiana in 1880s. For the next 46 years, Marengo made improvements and charged admissions fees. John Ross purchased a plot of land next to the Marengo Cave. Next, it was determined that the subterranean parts of Marengo encroach on the Ross land. Procedural History christmas games to do with family