Geoghegan v. Marshall
| Decision Date | 10 June 1889 |
| Citation | 6 So. 502,66 Miss. 676 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | A. D. GEOHEGAN v. CATHERINE MARSHALL |
FROM the circuit court of Jefferson county, HON. RALPH NORTH Judge.
This is an ejectment suit instituted in 1884 by the appellee, Mrs Marshall, against the appellant, Geohegan. It has been several times tried and the record is very voluminous. The first, as likewise the second trial, resulted in favor of the defendant, Geohegan, the verdict in each case being set aside and a new trial awarded. A third trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, Mrs. Marshall, but this judgment was reversed on appeal to this court and the cause remanded for another trial.
The defendant relies upon title acquired by continuous and adverse possession of the land under a claim of ownership for more than ten years, basing his original claim upon a parol gift from one Stampley, the ancestor of' appellee. The plaintiff shows a right to recover, unless the defendant establishes his defence of title by adverse possession. In this attitude of the case the court granted, among others the following instructions for the plaintiff:
1. "The court instructs the jury that in this case the plaintiff is entitled to recover, unless the defendant has proven to their satisfaction, and by a clear preponderance of evidence that he has been in open, notorious and undisputed possession of the property in controversy for ten years next before the institution of this suit--to wit, 10th May, 1884 claiming the same as owner and exercising exclusive acts of ownership over the same.
2. The court instructs the jury for the plaintiff that the evidence introduced by her entitles the plaintiff to a verdict in her favor, and before a verdict can be returned against her it devolves upon the defendant to show by a preponderance of evidence that he has been in the actual adverse possession of the land, claiming it continuously as his own, as against any one else, for the period of ten years next before the commencement of this suit, and if the defendant by such preponderance has failed to satisfy the jury they will find for the plaintiff."
As the opinion is limited to a consideration of these two instructions, it is not deemed necessary to further state the facts.
Judgment reversed and remanded.
J. J. Whitney and Hooker & Hooker, for the appellant.
It was erroneous to instruct the jury that defendant must show adverse...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neal v. Newburger Co
... ... subsequently made nor recognition of title in another can ... divest the title already acquired [154 Miss. 695] ... Geoghegan ... v. Marshall, 66 Miss. 676; Boyd v. Allen & Enoch, ... 102 Miss. 117; Fant et al. v. Williams, 118 Miss ... 428, 79 So. 343; Off. v ... ...
-
Elmer v. Holmes
... ... the lapse of statutory period of limitation ... Davis ... v. Davis, 68 Miss. 478, 10 So. 70; Geohegan v ... Marshall, 66 Miss. 676, 6 So. 502 ... F. W ... Elmer, Jr., was a competent witness in behalf of Mrs. F. W ... Elmer, Jr ... Sec ... ...
-
Murphy v. Green
...next preceding the institution of suit: Cannon v. Stockmon, 36 Cal. 535; Dean v. Goddard, 55 Minn. 290 (56 N.W. 1060); Geohegan v. Marshall, 66 Miss. 676 (6 So. 502); Allen v. Mansfield, 82 Mo. D. J. Dolan and John G. Johnson, for appellee. -- The construction for which appellee contends se......
-
Crotwell v. T & W Homes, No. 2020-CA-00331-SCT
...been continuous for the required number of years, necessary to confer title . Our court dealt with this question in Geo[g]hegan v. Marshall , 66 Miss. 676, [6 So. 502 (1889),] an ejectment suit in which the court condemned certain instructions given for the plaintiff. The defendant there re......