Scarborough v. Native Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 08 July 1918
• Docket Number: 20314
• Citation: 79 So. 84,118 Miss. 138
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: SCARBOROUGH ET AL. v. NATIVE LUMBER CO

79 So. 84

118 Miss. 138

SCARBOROUGH ET AL. v. NATIVE LUMBER CO

No. 20314

Supreme Court of Mississippi

July 8, 1918

Division B

APPEAL from the chancery court of Harrison county, HON. W. M. DENNY JR., Chancellor.

Suit by the Native Lumber Company against J. L. Scarborough and others. From a decree for complainants, defendants appeal.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Affirmed.

W. E Morse and J. M. Morse, for appellant.

White & Ford, for appellee.

OPINION

STEVENS, J.

Appellee, the Native Lumber Company, filed its bill of complaint against L. L. Scarborough and other parties, descendants and relatives of one Abraham Scarborough, deceased, to confirm the title to six forty-acre tracts of land in Harrison county. Under the pleadings and proof appellee company claims under an unbroken chain of title from Alexander Scarborough and wife in 1861. Appellant claims through deeds executed by the descendants and relatives of Abraham Scarborough, to whom the land was patented by the state of Mississippi in 1860. Appellant L. L. Scarborough is a brother of Abraham Scarborough and claims some interest by inheritance. He also claims by deeds executed by various descendants of Abraham Scarborough, and he now claims to be the owner of an undivided 2053/2160 interest. In addition to appellee's claim of ownership by conveyances dated back to Alexander Scarborough and wife in 1861, it relied upon adverse possession and offered testimony tending to show that it and its predecessors in title had been in actual adverse possession of the land for the required statutory period. There was testimony that appellee and its predecessors had claimed the land, had it assessed for taxes, and had paid all taxes due thereon since 1860. There was a decree confirming appellee's title, and from this decree appellant appeals.

It is contended by appellant that the proof is insufficient to establish adverse possession. In the disposition of this appeal we need not determine whether the proof in all of its essential details arises to that degree necessary to prove title by adverse possession. It is undisputed that for a period of approximately fifty-four years appellee and its predecessors in title have laid claim to the land, have paid taxes on it, cut timber therefrom, and for many years used the standing pine timber for turpentine purposes and operated turpentine orchards on the lands in question. It further...