The cotenant in possession must effect an ouster of the other cotenant of an unequivocal nature and distinctly hostile to the rights of the other so that the intent to possess adversely is clear and unmistakable. Davis v. Davis, 508 So.2d 1062, 1065 (Miss. 1987). The trustee relies on Guerin v American Smelting Refining Co., 236 P.2d 684 (Arizona 1925) to show that actual knowledge is not a prerequisite to quieting title against a co-owner.

1986). The cotenant in possession must effect an ouster of the other cotenant of an unequivocal nature and distinctly hostile to the rights of the other so that the intent to possess adversely is clear and unmistakable. Davis v. Davis, 508 So.2d 1062, 1065 (Miss. 1987). The cotenant alleging ouster has the burden of establishing that the other cotenants were unequivocally ousted by actual notice or conduct equivalent thereto.

1986). See also, Davis v. Davis, 508 So.2d 1062, 1063-64 (Miss. 1987). Other jurisdictions have also adopted the position adhered to by this Court in Cole, supra.

In Galloway we followed the construction placed upon the language of Rule 56, Fed.R. Civ.P., in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552-53, 91 L.Ed.2d 265, 273 (1986). See also Davis v. Davis, 508 So.2d 1062, 1066 (Miss. 1987); Millican v. Turner, 503 So.2d 289, 292 n. 3 (Miss. 1987). Federal Rule 56 is identical to our Rule 56.

This exclusive possession must be shown for a period of ten years. Davis v. Davis, 508 So.2d 1062, 1065 (Miss. 1987); Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-13 (1972). Our concern is the legal sufficiency of the evidence to establish each of these elements of adverse possession for any ten year period between May 8, 1867, and November 1, 1890.

Charles is only asserting a claim to damages for cut timber, but he is asserting a valid inherited interest in the land from which the timber was removed. Thus, this case is distinguishable from Davis v. Davis, 508 So.2d 1062 (Miss. 1987), where the plaintiff could not establish her interest as a matter of law. Neither is adverse possession even suggested under these facts as supporting the chancellor's decisions.