property claim in Nebraska

2022Kozal v. Snyder, 312 Neb. 208 , 978 N.W.2d 174 (2022).

2022Kozal v. Snyder, 312 Neb. 208 , 978 N.W.2d 174 (2022).

1998Potts v. Board of Equalization, 213 Neb. 37 , 328 N.W.2d 175 (1982).

1998Potts v. Board of Equalization, 213 Neb. 37 , 328 N.W.2d 175 (1982).

1988We stated in Dale v. Hunneman, 12 Neb. 221, 224 , 10 N.W. 711 , 712 (1881), “If the defendant possesses an equity which negatives the plaintiff’s right of possession, such equity may be proved under a general denial, as it is a mere defense to the action.” Plaintiff’s reliance, in her brief, on Neb.

1964Dartmouth College v. Rose, 172 Neb. 764 , 112 N. W. 2d 256 .

1964Dartmouth College v. Rose, 172 Neb. 764 , 112 N. W. 2d 256 .

1961“A party, in order to establish title to real property by the operation of the statute of limitations, or in other words by adverse possession, must prove by a pre *781 ponderance of the evidence that he has been in actual, continuous, notorious, and adverse possession of the property under claim of ownership during the full period required by the statute. * * * The statutory period for the establishment of title to real estate by adverse possession is 10 years.” Jones v. Schmidt, 170 Neb. 351 , 102 N. W. 2d 640 .

1961“A party, in order to establish title to real property by the operation of the statute of limitations, or in other words by adverse possession, must prove by a pre *781 ponderance of the evidence that he has been in actual, continuous, notorious, and adverse possession of the property under claim of ownership during the full period required by the statute. * * * The statutory period for the establishment of title to real estate by adverse possession is 10 years.” Jones v. Schmidt, 170 Neb. 351 , 102 N. W. 2d 640 .

1961“To determine the acts necessary to constitute adverse possession it is sometimes necessary to take into consideration the character of the property and the purposes for which it is suitable.” Walker v. Bell, 154 Neb. 221 , 47 N. W. 2d 504 .

1961“To determine the acts necessary to constitute adverse possession it is sometimes necessary to take into consideration the character of the property and the purposes for which it is suitable.” Walker v. Bell, 154 Neb. 221 , 47 N. W. 2d 504 .

1960See, Lewon v. Heath, 53 Neb. 707 , 74 N. W. 274 ; Worm v. Crowell, 165 Neb. 713 , 87 N. W. 2d 384 ; Burket v. Krimlofski, supra. In order to establish title by adverse possession it is not necessary that a party shall prove a complete enclosure nor that he remained continuously on the land for the statutory period, but only that the land was used continuously for the purposes to which it was by its *360 nature adapted.

1960See, Lewon v. Heath, 53 Neb. 707 , 74 N. W. 274 ; Worm v. Crowell, 165 Neb. 713 , 87 N. W. 2d 384 ; Burket v. Krimlofski, supra. In order to establish title by adverse possession it is not necessary that a party shall prove a complete enclosure nor that he remained continuously on the land for the statutory period, but only that the land was used continuously for the purposes to which it was by its *360 nature adapted.

1896(Carson v. Dundas, 39 Neb., 503 .) We conclude, therefore, that the evidence supports the finding of the district court that prior to the time that Lantry claims to have acquired any interest in this property, or claims to have been in possession thereof, a perfect legal title thereto had vested, in Wolff because of the open, notorious, exclusive, and adverse possession of the property under claim of ownership thereto of Wolff and his grantors for more than ten years.

1882Or as stated in Hart v. The Mayor of Albany, 3 Paige, 213 , the court does not interfere to prevent a mere trespass, unless the complainant has been in the previous undisturbed enjoyment of the property under a claim of right, or where from the irresponsibility of the defendant, or otherwise, the complainant could not obtain relief at law.

1878But in such case the defendant should not have damages for the detention, or use of the property, in addition to its value, for as is well said in Garrett v. Wood, 3 Kan., 231 , “ this would be compensating him twice for the same injury.” But in this case, as before shown, the defendant in error, at the time of the levy, was in the peaceful possession of the property under a claim of ownership, and for aught that appears with no one, save the plaintiff in error with his executions, questioning the soundness of his title.

1878In the case of Barney v. Douglass, 22 Wis., 464 , it was held that the owner of a steam engine could not recover for its use during the time it was wrongfully detained without showing that he was in a situation to use it, and was prevented from doing so by such detention.