Harris v. McMullan, 38060
| Decision Date | 22 October 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 38060,38060 |
| Citation | 212 Miss. 382,54 So.2d 544 |
| Parties | HARRIS et al. v. McMULLAN et ux. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
H. C. Stringer, Jackson, for appellants.
A. B. Amis, Jr., Newton, for appellees.
This is a land-line controversy. Appellants, and appellee, Joseph W. McMullan, have the legal title to adjoining lots in the Town of Decatur, Mississippi, the lot of appellants lying immediately to the north of the McMullan lot. Appellants claim McMullan and his wife came across the dividing line and wrongfully took, and then had, possession of all, or a part of, their lot. They instituted this action to eject the McMullans from their property. The jury returned a verdict for defendants, thereby finding that the McMullans had not encroached upon the lot of plaintiffs.
Appellants say they were entitled to a directed verdict. This is based upon the assumption that a survey made by W. J. Burke, employed by plaintiffs, was correct and uncontradicted, showing the McMullans to be in possession of the south part of the lot of appellants. No Government field notes of the area existed, nor was there an existing map or plat thereof. Burke found his starting point by this method: He examined on record a number of deeds to individuals, and, assuming the descriptions, dimensions and courses in these deeds to be correct, ran his lines accordingly, pieced and added together the described parcels in the deeds, and arrived at his starting point, some distance from the lots involved, from which point he tried to locate the dividing line between the lots of the litigants, locating the McMullan residence some sixty feet upon appellants' lot. He admitted he did not know whether his survey was accurate had he been able to start from a fixed governmental corner. In fact, he strongly intimated he thought such a survey would not have been in accord with the one he made. He was asked 'It is possible that your survey is all wrong if you made a true and accurate survey according to the field notes?' He replied: 'According to the field notes, but according to the deeds it would not be.' In addition to this, Mr. Burke said he had made another survey for the purpose of locating this dividing line, which differed very materially at the point in controversy from the survey about which he testified, and upon which plaintiffs relied. The accuracy and weight of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bay Springs Forest Products, Inc. v. Wade, 53790
...corner and that his survey tied in with the old established lines. The accuracy of this survey was for the jury, Harris v. McMullan, 212 Miss. 382, 54 So.2d 544, and the trial court committed no error in refusing to exclude 217 Miss. at 21, 63 So.2d at 414. Enough said. B. The Adverse Posse......
-
Glover v. Daniels, EC 6920-S.
...at 640. 34 See Note 6. 35 Miss., 215 So.2d 866, 868, 1968. 36 198 Miss. 371, 21 So.2d 912, 914 (1945). 37 Harris, et al. v. McMullan, et ux., 1951, 212 Miss. 382, 54 So.2d 544, 545, where the court said: "Instructions cannot be based upon assumed, but unestablished, material Johnson v. Howe......
- Houston v. Baldwin, 38318
-
Kelley v. Welborn, 38689
...corner and that his survey tied in with the old established lines. The accuracy of this survey was for the jury, Harris v. McMullan, 212 Miss. 382, 54 So.2d 544, and the trial court committed no error in refusing to exclude it. It is undisputed that 48 trees were cut south of the line which......