Pippin v. Sims, 37886
| Decision Date | 19 March 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 37886,37886 |
| Citation | 51 So.2d 272,211 Miss. 194 |
| Parties | PIPPIN v. SIMS. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Welch, Cooper & Welch, Laurel, for appellant.
Quitman Ross, Laurel, for appellee.
I. V. Sims, plaintiff, sued Oliver Pippin and R. G. Crout, defendants, in the county court of Jones County for damages and the statutory penalty for the wrongful cutting of timber on the land owned by Sims. Sims recovered a judgment against both defendants for the actual value of the timber and against Pippin only for the statutory penalty. From that judgment Pippin appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court affirmed the judgment of the county court and Pippin has appealed to this Court.
Sims was the owner of a tract of land described as the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 28, Township 10 North, Range 11 West, and Pippin was the owner of the 20-acre tract of land described as the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of section 28. Pippin's 20-acre tract of land was situated immediately east of and adjoined Sims' south 20 acres. Pippin called upon Sims and told him that he wanted to sell to Court the timber on his 20-acre tract, and that Crout also wished to purchase Sims' timber. Sims told Pippin that his timber was not for sale, that he wanted to cut his own timber for his own personal use. Pippin indicated that he was not satisfied with the old boundary line between the 20-acre tract owned by Pippin and the south 20 acres of the Sims' tract. Sims told Pippin that if he did not want to use the old line Pippin could get the county surveyor to run the line and that he (Sims) would pay half of the cost and help him run the line. Sims testified that Pippin agreed to do that and fixed a definite day for the survey to be made. Because of the rain and sleet, Pippin did not notify the county surveyor and the line was not run on the day which had been tentatively agreed upon. Later Pippin called upon Sims at his home to talk to him again about the sale of the timber and the running of the line. Sims again told Pippin that he did not want to sell his timber, and that if Pippin did not want to use the old line he could get the county surveyor to run the line and he (Sims) would pay half the cost and help run the line.
Pippin did not get the county survyor to run the line, but a few days later went into the woods with Crout and one Howard, who had a pocket compass, and undertook to establish the line and to point out to Crout the timber that he was to cut. Sims was not present and had no notice of Pippin's determination to run the line for himself without the assistance of the county surveyor. A considerable portion of the timber was standing on low marshy land which could not be easily traversed during the wet season. But Pippin and Howard, with the aid of the pocket compass, established a line which Crout was to follow, and Pippin pointed out to Crout the timber that he was to cut. Crout then proceeded to cut the timber on the land which Pippin pointed out to him. A few days after the timber had been cut, Sims learned of the cutting and upon making an inspection of the land found that trees had been cut for a considerable distance west of the old line. Sims then employed Steverson, the county surveyor, to run the line between his land and Pippin's 20-acre tract. The survey thus made by the county surveyor coincided with the old line that Sims had indicated he was willing to accept. After the line had been thus re-established by the new survey, it was definitely ascertained that Crout had cut 28 pine trees on Sims' land, and that the log scale measurement of the timber thus cut on Sims' land...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grisham v. Hinton
...(1956); Hudson v. Landers, 215 Miss. 447, 61 So.2d 312 (1952); Sansing v. Thomas, 211 Miss. 727, 52 So.2d 478 (1951); Pippin v. Sims, 211 Miss. 194, 51 So.2d 272 (1951); Howse v. Russell, 210 Miss. 57, 48 So.2d 628 (1950), opinion amended 210 Miss. 57, 49 So.2d 809; Hays v. Lyon, 192 Miss. ......
-
Sansing v. Thomas, 37906
...case of Seward v. West, 168 Miss. 376, 150 So. 364, 366, and prior decisions of this Court, and under the more recent case of Pippin v. Sims, Miss., 51 So.2d 272, that the statutory penalty for the wrongful cutting of timber will be allowed 'only where the facts are well proved and where th......
-
C. L. Gray Lumber Co. v. Pickard
...in Section 1075, Code of 1942, as amended by Chapter 312, Laws of 1950. Floyd v. Williams, 198 Miss. 350, 22 So.2d 365; Pippin v. Sims, 211 Miss. 194, 51 So.2d 272; Sansing v. Thomas, 211 Miss. 727, 52 So.2d 478; Odom v. Luehr, 213 Miss. 782, 57 So.2d It therefore follows that this cause sh......
-
Hutto v. Kremer, 39354
...and principal in the trespass of cutting the timber by the purchaser when cut where he was directed to cut it. See also Pippin v. Sims, 211 Miss. 194, 51 So.2d 272. The legal principle applicable to the facts of this case is stated at Section 85 of Cooley on Torts (4th Ed.) as follows: 'All......