Brooks-Scanlon Co. v. Stogner

• Citation: 75 So. 596,114 Miss. 736
• Decision Date: 11 June 1917
• Docket Number: 19280
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Parties: BROOKS-SCALON CO. ET AL. v. STOGNER

75 So. 596

114 Miss. 736

BROOKS-SCALON CO. ET AL. v. STOGNER

No. 19280

Supreme Court of Mississippi

June 11, 1917

Division B

APPEAL from the chancery court of Walthall county, HON. R. W CUTRER, chancellor.

Bill by Brooks-Scanlon Company and others against H. T. Stoger. From a decree for defendants, plaintiff appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Judgment affirmed.

Dale &amp Rawls and Griffith & Wallace, for appellant.

L. W. Felder and B. F. Moak, for appellee.

OPINION

ETHRIDGE, J.

The Brooks-Scanlon Company, a corporation, filed its bill in the chancery court of Walthall county in 1915 against H. T. Stogner to confirm title to that company to the south one-half of southwest one-fourth section 15, township 1, range 12 E., and deraigned title through a series of conveyances back to the United States government, the United States having conveyed under the swamp land grant to the state of Mississippi, and the state of Mississippi, in 1883, conveying the land to another party, in a chain of title from whom, by a chain of title, appellant acquired a deed. In 1907 suit was filed in the chancery court by A. M. Chesbrough and others against all persons having a legal or equitable claim to the above lands. In said suit publication was made, but no person was actually summoned. The bill to confirm in the suit of 1907 alleged that there was no adverse possession of the land, and no person in possession or claiming any title or rights was summoned, but the only process in said suit was the publication to all persons having any legal or equitable interest in the land. A decree pro confesso was taken on this publication and final decree entered confirming the title.

The defendant Stogner answered the bill in the present suit, stating that he was in possession of the land through himself and his chain of title since 1871, and that he was in possession at the time of the suit to confirm title in 1907; that he was not summoned or otherwise notified and had no knowledge of said suit filed in 1907 until he was summoned in the present suit. He set forth his chain of title and prayed for a cancellation of the complaint's title, and also the title of the Lumbermen's Mills Company to the said lands, making his answer a cross-bill for that purpose, and alleging that, in addition to his chain of title, he had been in the continuous, open, notorious, peaceable, and adverse possession, claiming against all persons whatsoever.

There was much testimony introduced by both parties upon the question of adverse possession; The proof introduced by each side tending to establish its contentions with reference to adverse possession. On this conflict in the evidence the chancellor found for the defendant, and, as the defendant had been enjoined from cutting timber and exercising rights of ownership during the suit, damages to the amount of one hundred and fifty dollars were allowed the defendant on the dissolution of the injunction, one hundred dollars of said amount being for attorneys' fees....