Zipf v. Delgarn
Zipf v. Delgarn
Opinion of the Court
1. The expert testimony of civil engineers assist the court in deciding a controversy as to the location of a disputed line between adjacent lot owners, is not rendered incompetent by reason of Section 2797, General Code, providing that no re-survey by any person except a county surveyor, or his deputy, shall be considered as legal testimony.
_ 2. Where there is privity between successive occupants such as • grantor and grantee holding a strip of ground continuously and adversely, such successive periods amounting to over twenty-one years, the occupations may be united or tacked to each other to make up the time of adverse holding sufficient to ripen into a title by prescription to the land so occupied, other elements necessary to make prescription title being present. (McNeely v. Langen, 22 Ohio St., 32, approved and followed.)
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Edward P. Zipf v. Mary E. Delgarn
- Status
- Published