Opinion
No. 39050.
February 1, 1954.
1. Clouds on title — boundaries — adverse possession — findings and decree for complainant.
In complainant landowner's suit against adjoining landowner to cancel claim to land lying on complainant's side of fence separating the two tracts, claiming title thereto by adverse possession, and for decree for value of timber cut and removed by defendant, evidence sustained findings that complainant and his predecessors in title had occupied land in question up to fence line for long more than ten years, that reputation as to ownership of land in controversy had always been that it was owned by complainant and his predecessors in title and that complainant was entitled to relief prayed for.
Headnote as approved by Hall, J.
APPEAL from the chancery court of Newton County; ROY P. NOBLE, Chancellor.
Sam O. Buckley, Meridian, for appellant.
I. Cited and discussed the following authorities: Batson v. Smith, 211 Miss. 428, 51 So.2d 749; Bruton v. Roberts, 265 Ky. 569, 97 S.W.2d 413, 107 A.L.R. 1289; Buchannan v. Nixon, 163 Tenn. 364, 43 S.W.2d 380, 80 A.L.R. 151; Chiles v. Gallagher, 67 Miss. 414, 7 So. 208; Cohen v. Smith, 94 Miss. 517, 49 So. 611; Cummins v. Dumas, 147 Miss. 215, 113 So. 332; Edrington v. Stephens, 148 Miss. 583, 114 So. 387; Fitzgerald v. Allen, 126 Miss. 678, 89 So. 146; Garner v. Garner, 117 Miss. 694, 78 So. 623; Gilchrist-Fordney Co. v. Thigpen, 114 Miss. 182, 74 So. 823; Goff v. Avent, 122 Miss. 86, 84 So. 134; H. Wheaton Lbr. Co. v. Lacey Lbr. Co., 123 Miss. 208, 85 So. 193, 10 A.L.R. 436; Jefferson Co. v. Grafton, 74 Miss. 435, 21 So. 247, 36 A.L.R. 798; Jonas v. Flannikin, 69 Miss. 577, 11 So. 319; Jones v. Rogers, 85 Miss. 802, 38 So. 742; Levenworth v. Reeves, 106 Miss. 722, 64 So. 660; McCaughn v. Young, 85 Miss. 277, 37 So. 839; Meyer v. Sea Food Co., 136 Miss. 868, 101 So. 702; Mitchell v. Bond, 84 Miss. 72, 36 So. 148; Nicholson v. Myres, 170 Miss. 441, 154 So. 282; O'Keefe v. McLemore, 125 Miss. 374, 87 So. 655; Peeler v. Hutson, 202 Miss. 837, 32 So.2d 785; Turnipseed v. Moseley, 248 Ala. 340, 27 So.2d 483; Wheat v. J.L. White Lbr. Co., 150 Miss. 616, 116 So. 103; Wilkerson v. Hiller, 71 Miss. 678, 14 So. 442. O.B. Triplett, Jr., Forest, for appellee.
I. Appellee was entitled to recover for the timber cut by appellant from the right-of-way sold to the Board of Supervisors of Newton County. Campbell v. Covington County, 161 Miss. 374, 137 So. 111, 112; State v. Junkin, 172 Miss. 225, 159 So. 107; Whitworth v. Miss. State Highway Comm., 203 Miss. 94, 33 So.2d 612, 613.
II. The value of the timber was determined by the Court upon competent evidence.
III. The warranty deed from Mrs. N.E. Wilson to D.O. Anderson to E 1/2 NE 1/4 did not estop Mrs. Wilson or any person claiming through or with her from thereafter acquiring title by adverse possession. Batson v. Smith, 211 Miss. 428, 51 So.2d 749.
IV. Appellee's title by adverse possession was not affected by any estoppel.
V. Appellee's alleged ignorance of the location of the true boundary line of W 1/2 of NE 1/4 did not prevent him from obtaining title by adverse possession to that which he claimed and held in possession. Daniels v. Jordan, 161 Miss. 78, 134 So. 903; Louis Cohen Bros. v. Peyton, 145 Miss. 261, 110 So. 509.
Appellee has record title to the W 1/2 of NE 1/4, and appellant has record title to the E 1/2 of NE 1/4, all in Section 21, Township 8, North Range 10 East in Newton County. An old fence runs approximately North and South for most of the distance between the parties but is situated on the E 1/2 of NE 1/4 and consequently takes in some of the land to which appellant has record title. Appellee brought this suit to cancel the claim of appellant to the land lying West of the fence, claiming title thereto by adverse possession, and he also sought a judgment against appellant for the value of timber cut and removed therefrom by him.
The chancellor found that the fence has been in its present location for more than sixty years, that appellee and his predecessors for long more than ten years have occupied the land up to the fence line and its extension during this time, and that there has never been any dispute about the line until recently. He further found that the reputation as to ownership of the land in controversy has always been that it is owned by appellee and his predecessors in title. He accordingly granted the relief sought by the bill of complaint, entering judgment against appellant for $680 as the value of the timber removed by him, and dismissed a cross-bill filed by appellant seeking to have the true line established as the correct dividing line between the properties.
(Hn 1) The decree is abundantly supported by the overwhelming evidence offered at the trial and we are not authorized to disturb it. In fact, if the chancellor had decreed otherwise we would be inclined to reverse him.
Affirmed.
McGehee, C.J., and Kyle, Holmes and Arrington, JJ., concur.