Snowden & McSweeny Co. v. Hanley
| Decision Date | 20 December 1943 |
| Docket Number | 35468. |
| Citation | 195 Miss. 682,16 So.2d 24 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | SNOWDEN & McSWEENY CO. v. HANLEY et al. |
Henry & Barbour, of Yazoo City, for appellant.
V Ruth Campbell, of Yazoo City, Vinson, Elkin, Weems & Francis and Thomas Fletcher, all of Houston, Tex., Brunini & Brunini, of Vicksburg, Fielding L. Wright, of Rolling Fork, Ray, Spivey & Cain, of Canton, and J. G. Holmes, of Yazoo City, for appellee.
The dominant issue in this case is whether one J. R. Williams had, before the institution of this suit, acquired title by adverse possession to the south ten acres of the SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 Sec. 35, Tp. 10, R. 3 W, in Yazoo County.
This ten acres has been a part of what was known as the Jeffries land and was so when J. C. Peyton purchased the Jeffries property in 1881. Peyton had his residence on the ten acres mentioned, and some time about 1885 he constructed a barbed wire fence running along and upon the entire south line of the said SE 1/4 of NE 1/4. This fence was then and, according to the great weight of the evidence has ever since been regarded as the line fence at that point between the Jeffries property and the land to the south.
Williams purchased the Jeffries place in 1911, the deed designating it as such, but the deed was so drawn that the ten acres above mentioned were not included in the description. Williams supposed, however, that his deed called for the land down to the fence line, and he took possession accordingly, the testimony being sufficient to show that at that time the fence was there at and on said south line and in a substantially good condition.
Williams having then taken possession of the said ten acres, the testimony preponderates that from 1911 down to the institution of this suit, some thirty years, he had cultivated a part or parts of the ten acres either by tenants or by hired hands for or during each year with the possible exception of two years, and that at no time had his right to said use and occupancy been questioned, although the owners of the adjoining land to the south, who lived in the immediate neighborhood, knew throughout all that long length of time that Williams was cultivating and using the ten acres as stated. And, according to the weight of the testimony, it was generally reputed and understood in the community that Williams was the owner of the said ten acres and down to the fence line. Some of the cultivated patches approached within a few feet of the fence.
The main issue which the parties have contested and towards which, more than any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roy v. Kayser
...land and put the true owner upon notice that his land [was] held under an adverse claim of ownership." Snowden and McSweeny Co. v. Hanley, 195 Miss. 682, 687, 16 So.2d 24, 25 (1943). At trial, Kayser's evidence concerned only his possessory acts on the land since 1953; yet, it is clear that......
-
Ellison v. Meek
...the land and put the true owner upon notice that his land [is] held under an adverse claim of ownership." Snowden & McSweeny Co. v. Hanley, 195 Miss. 682, 687, 16 So.2d 24, 25 (1943). "[A] land owner must have notice, actual or imputable, of an adverse claim to his property in order for it ......
-
Davis v. Clement
...the land and put the true owner upon notice that his land is held under an adverse claim of ownership. Snowden & McSweeny Co. v. Hanley, 195 Miss. 682, 687, 16 So.2d 24, 25 (1943). There is no need to dawdle over how the voluminous authorities regarding adverse possession construe each of t......
-
Buford v. Logue
...Miss. 811, 134 So. 139 (1931) (fenced pasture land more convincing than unfenced pasture land); see also Snowden & McSweeny Co. v. Hanley, 195 Miss. 682, 686, 16 So.2d 24, 25 (1943) ("[T]he question in [adverse possession cases] is whether the inclosure, like other acts of possession, is su......