Ark. Code Ann. § 14-15-712 (2026)

Research References

Ark. L. Rev.

Documentary Evidence — Arkansas, 15 Ark. L. Rev. 79.

Case Notes

Certified Copy.

Where plaintiff introduced into evidence a plat with signature of surveyor thereon, defendant did not have burden of proof to show plat was erroneous, since plat introduced was not a certified copy of official record kept by the surveyor. Horn v. Hays, 219 Ark. 450, 243 S.W.2d 3 (1951).

Instructions.

In case involving dispute over boundary line in which county surveyor testified as to the actual survey line, an instruction by the court, which stated that testimony of surveyor and documentary evidence introduced by him along with stipulation of the parties constituted prima facie evidence of the correct line as it appears from the survey unless the defendant could prove by a preponderance of evidence a different line, was not erroneous. Polk v. Willey, 220 Ark. 506, 248 S.W.2d 693 (1952).

Prima Facie Evidence.

A certified copy of an official survey made by a county surveyor is prima facie correct, but any duly qualified surveyor may testify as to its correctness. Russell v. State, 97 Ark. 92, 133 S.W. 188 (1910).

Where a party to a controversy over a certain boundary line introduces the surveyor's record in evidence making a prima facie case, it becomes the duty of the other party to show that the location of the true line is otherwise than as shown in the survey thus certified. Buffalo Zinc & Copper Co. v. McCarty, 125 Ark. 582, 189 S.W. 355 (1916).

Oral testimony as to location of property line is properly excluded. Mason v. Mason, 167 Ark. 304, 267 S.W. 772 (1925).

A state statute specifying that a certain record shall be prima facie evidence is binding upon a federal court, where the statute concerns not merely the admissibility of evidence (the certified copy of the county surveyor's record would be admissible whether such a state statute existed or not), but rather the legal effect of a certain type of survey in a case involving the title to land, traditionally a matter of state concern. Forshee v. Canard, 488 F. Supp. 521 (E.D. Ark. 1980).

If a certified copy of the official record of a county surveyor, as distinguished from his testimony only or a mere plat signed by him, is offered in evidence, then the corners and lines shown therein are established, unless the other party shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the location of the true line is other than as shown in the survey thus certified. Forshee v. Canard, 488 F. Supp. 521 (E.D. Ark. 1980).

The plaintiffs in a boundary line dispute failed to satisfy their burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence where their surveyor did not consult original field notes before making his survey and the survey offered in evidence by the defendants was a certified copy of a survey by the county surveyor and was consistent with two earlier surveys by two previous county surveyors. Forshee v. Canard, 488 F. Supp. 521 (E.D. Ark. 1980).

Unofficial Surveys.

A conviction for the wrongful cutting of timber was set aside where the evidence showed that an unofficial surveyor had surveyed the land and plainly marked the boundaries, but a subsequent official survey showed that the unofficial survey was less favorable to the defendant than the official survey. Sawyer & Austin Lumber Co. v. State, 75 Ark. 309, 87 S.W. 431 (1905).