Hudson v. Gulf Refining Co.

• Decision Date: 21 April 1947
• Docket Number: 36406.
• Citation: 30 So.2d 66,202 Miss. 331
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: HUDSON et al. v. GULF REFINDING CO. et al.

30 So.2d 66

202 Miss. 331

HUDSON et al. v. GULF REFINDING CO. et al.

No. 36406.

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 21, 1947

Lamar F. Easterling, Lester C. Franklin and George E. Shaw, all of Jackson, Ben F. Cameron, of Meridian, Robert E. Perry, of Jackson, and Lester E. Wills, of Meridian, for appellants.

Green & Green and Wells, Wells, Newman &amp Thomas, all of Jackson, Beard & Pack and Welch, Cooper and Welch, all of Laruel, Wilbourn, Miller & Wilbourn, of Meridian, Irwin W. Coleman, of Jackson John E. Green, Jr., of Houston, Tex., C. C. Richmond, of Jackson, Buchanan & Harper, of Laurel and Stevens and Cannada and J. Morgan Stevens, all of Jackson, for appellees.

L. A. SMITH, SR., Justice.

Thirteen heirs of N. L. Hudson, Sr., claiming to be the sole and only owners in fee of the 360 acres of land described, as well as of all the mineral interests therein, filed their bill in the Chancery Court of Jasper County against 106 defendants including the Gulf Refining Company (which, under a mineral lease from certain of its codefendants, had developed and was developing its holdings into an actual oilproducing acreage), and against other defendants, who, in addition to Gulf Refining Company, claim under other mineral leases covering in the aggregate all of the lands in question.

The claim of the said Hudson heirs is that during the year 1878 or 1879, N. L. Hudson, Sr., the then owner of the land, had conveyed all of it to his wife, M. E. Hudson, for the term of her natural life, and at her death to the children of said N. L. Hudson, Sr., for life, the remainder in fee to their children; that the deed was duly recorded, but the record thereof was destroyed by the courthouse fire in September 1932; and that complainants have not been able to find the original deed for recordation. It was further averred that N. L. Hudson, Sr., died in 1895, and M. E. Hudson, in 1928, and that subsequently to the date of the deed conveying a life estate to her, M. E. Hudson had executed deeds of conveyances to various grantees as if she owned the title in fee simple. Complainants, appellants here, also charged that by there conveyances the 106 defendants were, as latest grantees or their heirs, the present adverse claimants; and that by reason of the facts, supra, appellees had become, and remained since the death of M. E. Hudson, the tenants at sufferance of the complainant heirs.

Nearly all of the numerous defendants answered, and Gulf Refining Company and some twenty-five other defendants made their answer cross-bills. The answers denied that Hudson had made any such deed to his wife in 1878 or 1879, or at any other time in any such terms as asserted by complainants. On the contrary, they averred that, in fact, Hudson had made to his wife, M. E. Hudson, on January 23, 1880, a deed to the lands in fee simple absolute, this deed being recorded in Book 20, p. 135 of the record of deeds of the county. The defendants, appellees here, averred also that by unbroken chains of title from M. E. Hudson to them, as well as by more than forty years of adverse possession, they have become the owners, and that the complainants never in fact owned any interest whatever in the lands.

The answer by Gulf Refining Company, in addition to elaborate denials and averments touching the title by executed conveyances, adequately alleged adverse possession in its predecessors in title for the long period of years aforesaid. Making its answer a cross-bill, it prayed that its mineral lease be confirmed as against the original complainants, and prayed for alternative as well as for general relief. The twenty-five other defendants who made their answers cross-bills, in addition to setting up their particular interest in the premises, adopted all the denials and averments of the answer of the Gulf Refining Company and likewise, and as stated, made their answers cross-bills. The answer and cross-bill of Gulf Refining Company was filed on Sept. 16, 1944, and those of the other twenty-five cross-complainants on September 30, 1944. On December 12, 1945, the complainants filed a motion to dismiss their original bill aforesaid without prejudice, which motion was actively resisted by numerous of the original defendants, and the motion was overruled.

Had there been no cross-bills, it may have been that the complainants would have had the right to dismiss, as they sought to do, but leaving that question aside for the moment, we are of the opinion that they had no right to do so and at the same time secure the dismissals of the cross-bills, unless by the consent, express or implied, of the cross-complainants.

In days gone by it was the general rule that the dismissal of the original bill carried with it the cross-bill, but the modern rule, and particularly in this State, is as stated in Griffith Miss. Chancery Practice, Section 384, which reads as follows:

'The strict theory of the cross-bill is that it is a dependent of the original bill, in consequence of which formerly it was...