People's Realty & Development Corp. v. Sullivan, 48780
| Decision Date | 07 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 48780,48780 |
| Citation | 336 So.2d 1304 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE'S REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. Earl SULLIVAN et ux. |
Guy M. Walker, Laurel, J. C. Martin, Jr., Waynesboro, for appellant.
W. Vol Jones, William Vol Jones, Jr., Waynesboro, for appellees.
Before GILLESPIE, ROBERTSON and LEE, JJ.
People's Realty and Development Corporation filed its bill of complaint in the Chancery Court of Wayne County for a mandatory injunction requiring Earl R. Sullivan and Lela B. Sullivan, husband and wife, to remove a fence enclosing approximately seven (7) acres of its land and for other relief. The chancellor found that the Sullivans were vested with title to the property by adverse possession for a period of more than ten (10) years, and from that decree People's Realty and Development Corporation appeals. We reverse.
Appellant owns the Southeast quarter (SE-1/4) Section 6, Township 8 North, Range 6 West, Wayne County, Mississippi, and the disputed area lies west of a reed brake fence and east of a fence designated as the 'Cooley fence' in the northwest corner of said tract. Appellees and two witnesses testified that they built a four-strand wire fence through the middle of the reed brake in 1961 by nailing the wire to trees, and Mr. Sullivan further testified that he cut some timber on the land in 1969, and that he grazed and claimed the land since 1961. Evidence for appellant disclosed that no fence was in the reed brake until 1969, and, upon discovering same in 1973, steps were taken to remove it, that appellees' cattle did not graze the disputed area, and that there was no ingress or egress through the Cooley fence. Martin (appellant's manager) testified that in 1959 and again in 1965, Sullivan sought to but the disputed property from him and that he told Sullivan it was not for sale. This testimony was not denied by appellees. All witnesses agreed that the fence, if there, could not be seen or discovered unless a person actually entered and crossed the reed brake.
The question confronting the Court is whether or not the conduct of appellees was sufficient to put appellant upon notice that its land was being held under an adverse claim of ownership. A landowner must have notice, actual or imputable, of an adverse claim to his property in order for it to ripen into title against him, and the mere possession of land is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of open and notorious possession. Sporadic and temporary activity on the property is not sufficient to give notice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tadlock v. US
...right, actual, open, notorious, and visible, exclusive, continuous and uninterrupted, and peaceful. See People's Realty & Development Corporation v. Sullivan, 336 So.2d 1304 (Miss.1976). Plaintiffs' proof is unpersuasive given the quality of the government's proof in Estoppel Plaintiffs' cl......
-
Ellison v. Meek
...requirements of open and notorious possession." Craft v. Thompson, 405 So.2d 128, 130 (Miss. 1981); see also People's Realty & Dev. Corp. v. Sullivan, 336 So.2d 1304 (Miss. 1976); Trotter v. Gaddis & McLaurin, 452 So.2d 453 (Miss.1984); Coleman v. French, 233 So.2d 796, 796 (Miss.1970). The......
-
Davis v. Clement
...really have to base their claim on is an old barbed wire fence. In this sense, the case is analogous to Peoples Realty & Development Corp. v. Sullivan, 336 So.2d 1304, 1305 (Miss.1976), which "Sporadic and temporary activity on the property is not sufficient to give notice of an adverse cla......
-
Anderson v. Fisher
...mere possession of land is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of open and notorious possession." People's Realty & Dev. Corp. v. Sullivan , 336 So. 2d 1304, 1305 (Miss. 1976). Under this element, an adverse possessor must again "fly his flag over the lands" of the documented owner. O......