Chatman v. Carter
| Decision Date | 24 April 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 37467,37467 |
| Citation | 45 So.2d 841,209 Miss. 16 |
| Parties | CHATMAN et al. v. CARTER et al. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
L. A. Whittington, Natchez, for appellants.
Engle, Laud, Adams & Forman, Natchez, for appellees.
Lizzie Chatman and others, representing all the interests of the heirs of Monroe Chatman and wife, Mahaley Chatman, as complainants in the court below, filed their original and amended bills against Fred A. Anderson, Jr., and Hillary W. Carter to confirm their title to 46 acres of land, described in the bills, and to cancel an oil lease and a warranty deed held by them, respectively, on 15 acres of the tract. The answers set up that Ben Chatman, a son of Monroe, owned the 15 acres in controversy at the time of his death, which was prior to the death of Monroe; that the land passed to Eliza, the widow of Ben; that thereafter until his death, Monroe recognized Eliza as the owner; and that by adverse possession thereafter, Eliza and her successors perfected their title to the land.
There was no dispute in the following facts: Monroe Chatman owned all of this land. When Ben married, he and his wife, Eliza, moved into a house, situated on the 15 acres. They farmed the land, or a part thereof. In addition to cultivating this land, he was a charcoal burner, and used pine timber on the land for this purpose, which was his principal means of livelihood. On April 14, 1924, he died, and his widow, Eliza, continued to live on the place, using it as she and Ben had done before his death. On June 7, 1933, Monroe died. Thereafter, on September 27, 1933, Eliza executed to Fred A. Anderson, Jr., a deed to a 1/2 interest in the oil and gas rights on the 15 acres. The estate of Ben Chatman, or Eliza Chatman, paid the taxes from 1932 through 1945. The assessment to the estate of Ben Chatman had appeared on the roll prior to Monroe's death. Eliza died in 1942 or 1943, leaving Jeffie Anderson as her sole heir. He, in turn, executed the deed to Hillary W. Carter on January 23, 1946.
The proof by the complainants was to the effect that Ben and Eliza, after their marriage, moved on the place by the permission of Monroe; that any possession which they obtained was permissive; that after Ben's death, Eliza asked Monroe if she must move, and that he told her she could stay there as long as she lived, and at her death, the land would go to his heirs. They also contended that the description, '15 acres in the western corner of' the 46 acre tract was absolutely void.
The proof by the defendants was to the effect that Monroe made a parol gift of the land to Ben; that he and Eliza went into possession, farmed, burned charcoal, paid taxes, partly fenced, and exercised all acts of ownership thereover of which it was susceptible. They offered four deeds of trust and timber deeds executed by Monroe, et ux., of record in the county, in each of which the 15 acres in the western corner had been excepted, and in which instruments, 'being now occupied by Ben Chatman' also appeared. These instruments covered the period from March 6, 1918, to April 26, 1926. They also introduced another recorded deed of trust of date of September 24, 1929, executed by Monroe et ux., with a like exception of the 15 acres and occupancy by Ben. After this exception, the following covenant appeared: 'It is the true intent to convey all land in Adams County, Mississippi, now owned by Monroe Chatman and Mahaley Chatman, or either of them'. These instruments were offered as corroboration of the alleged parol gift.
From this proof, the defendants contended that there was a parol gift followed by adverse possession, which ripened into a good title. But also, if they were mistaken in this regard, when Eliza executed the oil and gas deed to Anderson on September 23, 1933, such act constituted ouster; and her adverse possession thereafter ripened into a good title.
The whole controversy was over the 15 acres. There was no dispute that complainants owned the remaining 31 acres. The defendants neither sought nor obtained any affirmative relief. While the defendants showed that they were in possession of some land, they did not show a sufficient description thereof. The proof by the complainants was to the effect that they owned the 46 acres; by the defendants, that they owned 15 acres, in their possession.
In this situation, the court decreed that the 'complainants have no claim, right, title and interest to the land described in the bill of complaint filed herein.' By adjudging that the complainants had no claim, right, title and interest to the land described in the bill of complaint, the decree, not only did not grant any relief...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nichols v. Gaddis & McLaurin, Inc.
...there to invoke the decision of Peeples v. Boykin. The facts reflected the equivalent of actual knowledge. In Chatman v. Carter, 1950, 209 Miss. 16, 45 So.2d 841, 844, the Court cited Peeples v. Boykin in observing that the execution of a mineral deed was 'evidence of ouster', but there wer......
-
Coleman v. Kierbow
...432, 51 L.R.A.,N.S., 187; Reedy v. Alexander, 202 Miss. 80, 30 So.2d 599; Allison v. Allison, 203 Miss. 15, 33 So.2d 289; Chatmam v. Carter, 209 Miss. 16, 45 So.2d 841; Duling v. Duling's Estate, Miss., 52 So.2d This brings us to the trust feature of the lawsuit. These same three claimants ......
-
Walker v. Easterling, 38532
...claimed to be the owner of the land. That act, as against anyone else claiming the land, was an act of ouster.' See also Chatman v. Carter, 209 Miss. 16, 45 So.2d 841, where it was held that the execution of an oil and gas deed by the claimant was evidence of ouster. See also Peeples v. Boy......
-
Trotter v. Gaddis and McLaurin, Inc., 54214
...cutting and selling timber and other acts of ownership and control over the same.... (Id. 8 So.2d at 256). See Chatman v. Carter, 209 Miss. 16, 45 So.2d 841 (1950). The possession must be sufficient to put another on notice, actual or imputable, of an adverse claim to his property. Without ......