Stampley v. Green
| Decision Date | 26 October 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 43143,43143 |
| Citation | 251 Miss. 47,168 So.2d 300 |
| Parties | Elizabeth STAMPLEY et al. v. Daisy GREEN et al. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Young & Hall, Jackson, Vanue B. Lacour, A. A. Lenoir, Baton Rouge, La., for appellants.
Corban & Corban, Fayette, Fred C. Berger, Natchez, for appellees.
This controversy from the Chancery Court of Jefferson County involves conflicting claims of cotenants to a sixty-three acre tract of land. The appellants, Elizabeth Stampley and others, brought this action to remove clouds on their alleged title against Daisy Green and others, who claim title by ouster and adverse possession. The chancery court entered a decree finding for the defendants and cross-complainants, holding that they and their predecessors had been in adverse possession of the land since at least 1942. Mose Green, the husband of Daisy Green, an appellee, purchased this land in 1939 from Roy Geoghegan, who had obtained a forfeited tax land patent from the state that same year. The court concluded that Green and his successors in title, the appellees, had ousted appellants and acquired title by open and uninterrupted adverse possession over a period of approximately twenty years.
The evidence warranted the chancery court in making this finding that there had been an ouster by Green of the other cotenants, and acquisition of full title by him through adverse possession of the property. The only appellant meriting particular comment is Hannah Green Tinner, an elderly Negro woman, who claimed a small fractional interest. She died pending her appeal, and it was revived in her heirs by stipulation.
Green permitted his sister, Hannah, to occupy a small house upon the land, after he moved on it with his large family in 1942. Green paid taxes in his own name, as did his successors, and worked and rented it, sold timber, rebuilt a house, retained all rents and profits as his own, did not recognize any cotenants, and held himself out as the owner, using the land as he pleased. He was recognized as the owner by the entire community.
A physical ouster is usual, but not necessary to establish title in a tenant in common by adverse possession. However, the ouster must be of an unequivocal nature, and distinctly hostile to the rights of the other cotenants, so that the intention to disseize is clear and unmistakable. The trial court found that Green's possession was attended with such circumstances as to evince a claim of exclusive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Davis
...the intention to possess adversely is clear and unmistakable. Monaghan v. Wagner, 487 So.2d 815, 819 (Miss.1986); Stampley v. Green, 251 Miss. 47, 168 So.2d 300, 301 (1964). By analogy, this rule applies in the case at bar. Frances Davis has no record title--only, at best, a homestead inter......
-
Monaghan v. Wagner, 55456
...or shown by such acts of repudiation of their claim as are equivalent to actual notice to them." In Stampley, et al. v. Green, et al., 251 Miss. 47, 168 So.2d 300, 301 (1964), this Court A physical ouster is usual, but not necessary to establish title in a tenant in common by adverse posses......
-
Gavin v. Hosey, 45474
...792 (1956); Anderson v. Boyd, 229 Miss. 596, 91 So.2d 537 (1956); Barber v. McManus, 205 So.2d 653 (Miss.1968); Cf. Stampley v. Green, 251 Miss. 47, 168 So.2d 300 (1964). Nichols v. Gaddis & McLaurin, supra, and those that follow it are decisive of the question In the case at bar appellant'......
-
Sumrall v. Doggett, 56570
...these facts as supporting the chancellor's decisions. Id.; Monaghan v. Wagner, 487 So.2d 815, 819 (Miss.1986); Stampley v. Green, 251 Miss. 47, 168 So.2d 300, 301 (1964). Appellees cite no law holding that an heir with an antecedent interest in real property loses that interest to a third p......