Evans v. Mississippi Power Co., 44662

Decision Date22 January 1968
Docket NumberNo. 44662,44662
Citation206 So.2d 321
PartiesJune EVANS et al. v. MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

A. S. Scott, Jr., Lampkin H. Butts, Laurel, for appellants.

Deavours & Hilbun, Laurel, for appellee.

ROBERTSON, Justice:

The Appellants, June Evans, et al., filed suit sounding in trespass against the Mississippi Power Company in the County Court of Jones County. The suit was transferred to the Circuit Court of Jasper County, where the Appellee, Mississippi Power Company, filed a demurrer to the declaration. The demurrer was sustained by the trial court. The appellants declined to amend, and perfected their appeal to this Court.

Dan and Ida Evans, the parents of June Evans and other appellants, owned eighty acres of land in Jasper County. Dan died testate in the late 1930s; but his will has not yet been probated. His wife Ida died later. There were twelve children born to this marriage, some of whom are living and some of whom have died natural deaths and some violent deaths. Some of those dying left issue, others did not. The date of death of some is known, but of others is not known. The title to this eighty acres of land is, therefore, clouded.

In 1966 Mississippi Power Company filed an application for the appointment of a special court of eminent domain in order to condemn a right-of-way across this eighty acres of land for the construction of a high power line. The named defendants in that case were June Evans, some of his brothers and sisters, and heirs of deceased brothers and sisters so far as known. The named defendants represented only 10/12ths of the title to this eighty acres. A verdict was returned for $1,000, and judgment was entered accordingly.

No appeal was taken by either party from the judgment of the special court of eminent domain. Admittedly some of the cotenants were present when the eminent domain proceeding was tried, but some were not. Within the time allowed by law, the amount of the judgment was paid in to the circuit clerk. Thereafter, appellee proceeded to construct and complete its high power line across the eighty acres.

The declaration demanding damages for a trespass on this land, the trespass being the construction of the high power line, does not reveal any request or any effort by the appellants to secure pro rata distribution of the $1,000 judgment from the clerk. The appellants, plaintiffs in the court below, claimed to be the owners of a 10/12ths interest in this land, but the owners of the remaining 2/12ths interest are unaccounted for. They were not parties to this proceeding in any respect.

The decision of this case turns on a construction of Section 2763, Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated (1956). That section provides:

'Upon the return of the verdict and entry of the judgment, if the applicant pay the defendant whose compensation is fixed by it, or tender to him the amount so found and pay the costs, he or it shall have the right to enter in and upon and take possession of the property of such defendant so condemned, and to appropriate the same to the public use defined in the application; and in case the defendant and his attorney absent themselves from the court, the payment may be made to the clerk of the circuit court for him, and such officer shall be responsible on his bond therefor and shall be compelled to receive it.' (Emphasis added.)

The only reasonable and logical interpretation that can be made of the words, 'defendant and his attorney,' is that such words refer to the owner of the complete title of a parcel of land, and not to an owner...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Potters II v. State Highway Com'n of Mississippi, 90-CC-1096
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • August 26, 1992
    ...an eminent domain proceeding. Lennep v. Mississippi State Highway Commission, 347 So.2d 341 (Miss.1977). Citing Evans v. Mississippi Power Co., 206 So.2d 321, 323 (Miss.1968), the Court explained: The money judgment of the special court of eminent domain is substituted for the rights taken ......
  • Mississippi State Highway Com'n v. Franklin County Timber Co., Inc., 55471
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 14, 1986
    ...itself; they are in the nature of in rem proceedings. Trustees of Wade Baptist Church, 469 So.2d at 1244; Evans v. Mississippi Power Co., 206 So.2d 321, 322 (Miss.1968). Compensation must be based upon the property itself and the damages to its fair market In this context, we note the Highw......
  • Trustees of Wade Baptist Church v. Mississippi State Highway Com'n
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 22, 1985
    ...value. Eminent domain proceedings are against the property itself; they are in the nature of in rem proceedings. Evans v. Mississippi Power Co., 206 So.2d 321, 322 (Miss.1968). Compensation must be based upon the property itself and the damages to its fair market In this context we note Mr.......
  • McDonald's Corp. v. Robinson Industries, Inc.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • August 21, 1991
    ...been two cases which have specifically addressed the question of whether an eminent domain court can try title. In Evans v. Mississippi Power Co., 206 So.2d 321 (Miss.1968), this Court said that an eminent domain court can only determine the amount of compensation; it cannot try title. The ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT