Have you heard of Henry Carstensen?
He got a raw deal or a black cloud was overhead wherever he went.
He acquired some lands from McNay in 1904 who had a homestead patent. He and his neighbors lived peacefully until 1918 when the GLO resurveyed the township. McNay's fences were a quarter mile too far west (oops) because they couldn't find the government corners.
The owner to Carstensen's west wanted to move the fences east and a lawyer advised him he couldn't resist. So he looked east to Brown. He sued Brown and lost on adverse possession grounds.
The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed on grounds of insufficient evidence in 1919 (Carstensen v. Brown, 185 P. 567).
So they had another trial and Carstensen prevailed but the Supreme Court reversed at 236 P. 517 (1925). In this opinion they announced the Wyoming Recognition and Acquiescence Doctrine and ordered the trial court to enter judgment in Brown's favor. The opinion contains a fairly extensive survey of establishment cases throughout the U.S including California's landmark case, Sneed v. Osborn.
So Carstensen revisited the case with his westerly neighbor (Porter) and lost the third trial so far. He appealed on the grounds of recognition and acquiescence (same Justice writing) but the court declined to grant that to him (ironically) but they must've felt sorry for him because they reversed on the grounds that he may have an equitable title in the lands he occupied before 1918 but a new trial is needed with instructions on extensive new evidence needed. Porter v. Carstensen, 274 P. 1072 (1929).
He never reappeared in the Supreme Court so it's unknown what happened in the case with Porter.
1918 sounds like the era of independent Resurveys executed in WY. If Carstensen was involved in one of them I wouldn't be surprised there was some confusion created for him, his neighbors and the court.
The GLO would often show complicated overlapping claims for private entrymen
always good to have a pic:
Carstensen: SE4SW, S21, NE4NW4, W2NE4, S28
Brown: S2SE4, S21, E2NE4, S28
This is not one of the many Independent Resurveys from that era (although a Tract does slide into the township along the east line), but rather a dependent resurvey, just from looking at the plat, there were very few original corners recovered during survey, it's one of those with many miles of prorated corners, possibly the entire township is a proration which is unusual.
From the map, the occupation lines were considerably off the new survey, no doubt it caused hand wringing and Carstensen was trapped in the middle. Acquiescence Doctrine is less applied here, Adverse Possession is more often argued.
Yes, I noticed that. They argue both then the record owner convinces the court it is a fence of convenience so they go with the surveyed line.
