Grice v. Brewer, 47764
| Decision Date | 04 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 47764,47764 |
| Citation | 302 So.2d 511 |
| Parties | Homer C. GRICE et ux. v. Frank BREWER et ux. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Hugh L. Bailey, Winona, for appellants.
Rupert Ringold, Winona, for appellees.
Homer Grice and his wife appeal from a decree of the Chancery Court of Montgomery County. There they sought to remove the claim of Frank Brewer and his wife to certain property as a cloud upon their title. The appellants' bill of complaint was dismissed and the claim of the appellees/cross-appellants was sustained on the theory of adverse possession.
The appellant's title is based on a 1941 deed and that of the appellees, a 1962 deed. The descriptions in these instruments show the eastern boundary of the appellants' property to be the western boundary of the appellees' property. The disputed area lies immediately west of the boundary line common to the deeds and is within the calls of the appellants' deed. The appellants seek to cancel the adverse claim of appellees to the area and conversely, the appellees seek confirmation of title by adverse possession.
The issue presented on appeal is whether the evidence supports the finding of the trial court that title vested in the appellees by adverse possession.
Approximately one year before this suit was filed a dispute between Grice and Brewer arose as to the location of their common property line. The Grices claim through their 1941 deed and continuous and peaceful use of the litigated area until the dispute. The Brewers' title is based upon their 1962 deed plus adverse possession which began, according to their testimony, at the time the deed was acquired. Brewer admits the litigated area is not within the calls of their deed, but nevertheless claims title to the area since it was pointed out to him by his grantor as being part of the land conveyed.
The evidence adduced depicts at best a scrambling possession between the parties from 1962 to the present. There is some evidence from long-time residents of the area that in the past the western line of the disputed area was thought to be the western boundary of the Brewers' property.
The chancellor found that record title to the disputed property was lodged in the appellants. He further found the possession of the parties since 1962 to be scrambling and inadequate to vest title in either by adverse possession. He then found that title had vested in the Brewers' predecessors in title by adverse possession and thereby vested in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitehead v. Johnston
...other jurisdictions have given effect to such clauses. See, e.g., Luthi v. Evans, 223 Kan. 622, 576 P.2d 1064, 1067 (1978); Grice v. Brewer, 302 So.2d 511 (Miss.1974); Sun Oil Co. v. Bennett, 125 Tex. 540, 84 S.W.2d 447 Mother Hubbard clauses, also referred to as "cover-all," "catch-all," o......
-
Riverview Dev. Co. v. Golding Dev. Co.
...Riverview's claim is that the City—and not Riverview itself—adversely possessed the property, this case is controlled by Grice v. Brewer, 302 So.2d 511 (Miss.1974). Consequently, we limit our discussion to those issues raised on appeal that are necessary to resolve the case. ¶ 7. In Grice, ......