Smith v. Leavenworth
Decision Date | 20 November 1911 |
Docket Number | 14,477 |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Parties | J. F. SMITH ET AL. v. GEORGE LEAVENWORTH |
APPEAL from the chancery court of Coahoma county, HON. M. E. DENTON Chancellor.
Suit by George Leavenworth against J. F. Smith et al. From a decree for complainants, defendants appeal.
Complainant filed a bill in chancery, setting up his claim to fractional section twenty-four, township twenty-seven, range seven W in Coahoma county, and alleging that defendant Smith claimed title to section fourteen adjoining and that said lumber company claimed the timber on said section fourteen by virtue of a deed from said Smith. The bill further alleges that, at the time this land was originally platted, sections fourteen and twenty-four were fractional sections, extending to the old river bank, which touched the corner of sections thirteen, fourteen and twenty-four; that for many years accretions have formed along the old river bank, and the channel of the stream was changed; that on the land so formed by these accretions there has grown up valuable timber, and that said lumber company claiming under its deed from Smith has entered upon a certain portion of the accretions between the north and south line passing through said corner and an east and west line passing through said corner; that the accretions in question lie south of section fourteen and west of section twenty-four, and extend to the present channel of the Mississippi river. The bill further alleges that said lumber company is claiming the ownership of the timber on this disputed territory by virtue of its conveyance from Smith, which conveys, among other sections, section fourteen This conveyance was dated December 29, 1906. The prayer of the bill is for an injunction to restrain the cutting by the defendants of the timber of the complainant on this disputed land, and for a decree settling the rights of the parties to the accretions formed in this territory, and establishing a boundary line between the accretions belonging to complainant and defendants. The answer of the appellants attacks complainant's title to section twenty-four and to the accretions in question, and is a general denial of the allegations of the bill of complaint. The answer does not set up any claim of title to section twenty-four in the defendants. On the hearing the court entered a decree dividing the accretions between the complainant and defendants, giving equal acreage to each of the accretions in the disputed territory. From this decree defendants appeal.
The complainant deraigns his title as follows: It will be seen that complainant relies upon a tax sale in March, 1876, for the taxes of 1875, and also a tax sale in March, 1881, for the taxes of the year 1880. It seems that there was some irregularity in the sale for the taxes of 1875, and the lands were again listed, and sold in 1881 for the taxes of 1880. Complainant entered into possession of said section twenty-four, in the year 1899, by agreement with Scott, who afterwards executed a deed to the property, and relies, also on adverse possession for a space of three years after two years from the date of said tax sale, as provided by section 2735 of the Code of 1892, brought forward as section 3095, Code of 1906.
The defendants attack the sale of 1881, because the land was not subject to taxation at that time; the title being then vested in the state under the sale of 1876, which latter was a valid sale. It seems that the attorney general had found some objection to the sale, and had ordered the lands struck from the auditor's records and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sharp v. Learned
... ... apportionment of accretions and a new river front on the ... basis of proportionate ownership on the old line of a river ... Smith ... v. Leavenworth, 101 Miss. 238, 57 So. 803, 35 S.Ct. 305, 235 ... U.S. 690, 59 L.Ed. 42; Wineman v. Withers, 108 So ... As to ... ...
-
Carter v. Moore
... ... Jonas ... v. Flanniken, 69 Miss. 577; Carlisle v. Yoder, 69 ... Miss. 384; Cole v. Coon, 70 Miss. 634; Smith v ... Leavenworth, 101 Miss. 238; Littlier v. Boddie, 104 ... Miss. 178 ... The ... Mississippi statute expressly provided that the ... ...
-
Wineman v. Withers
... ... instant case ... (a) If ... the method of apportionment used in Leavenworth v ... Smith, 57 So. 803, be applied to the lands here, the ... appellant would be entirely cut off from the water front ... It will ... ...
-
Anderson-Tully Company v. Walls, GC659.
...expressly mentioned or not. Crill v. Hudson, 71 Ark. 390, 74 S.W. 299; Mobbs v. Burrow, 112 Ark. 134, 165 S.W. 269, and Smith v. Leavenworth, 101 Miss. 238, 57 So. 803. Although the legal description of the land conveyed to plaintiff by its deed includes the land here in controversy as has ......