The text is smaller...like one of the chipmunks talking.
Alvin!!!!!!!!
It is significant that in most cases, a physical, visible
means of marking the boundary was effected at a
time when it was cheaper to risk the mistake of a
few feet rather than to argue about it, go to court,
or indulge the luxury of a survey, pursuance of any
of which motives may have proved more costly than
the possible but most expedient sacrifice of a small
land area. The rub comes when, after many years,
land value appreciation tempts a test of the
vulnerability of a claimed ancient boundary. The
struggle usually involves economics. Nothing is
wrong in the urge to acquire or retain. But neither
is there anything wrong in the lawÛªs espousal of a
doctrine that says that with the passage of a long
time, accompanied by an ancient visible line
marked by monuments with other pertinent and
particular facts, and with a do-nothing history on
the part of the parties concerned, can result in
putting to rest titles to property and prevent
protracted and often belligerent litigation usually
attended by dusty memory, departure of witnesses,
unavailability of trustworthy testimony, irritation
with neighbors and the like. This idea is based on
the concept that we must live together in a spirit
justifying repose or fixation of titles where there
has been a disposition on the part of neighbors to
leave an ancient boundary as is without taking
some affirmative action to assert rights inconsistent
with evidence of a visible, long-standing boundary.
In the vernacular, the doctrine might be
paraphrased to enunciate that boundaries might be
established by an ÛÏI donÛªt give a hootÛ attitude on
the part of neighbors.
King v. Fronk, 14 Utah 2d 135, 378 P.2d 893, 896 (Utah 1963).
Revolutionary thinking from 1963!
:gammon: