Tynes v. Southern Pine Co.
| Decision Date | 27 June 1910 |
| Citation | 54 So. 885,100 Miss. 129 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | WILLIAM E. TYNES v. SOUTHERN PINE CO. [*] |
March 1911
APPEAL from the chancery court of Marion county, HON. T. A. WOOD Chancellor.
Bill by William Tynes against the Southern Pine Co. A demurrer to the bill was sustained and complainant appeals.
Appellant filed his bill of complaint in the chancery court against appellee for confirmation of his title to the land in controversy, which is deraigned from the state through the Pearl River Improvement & Navigation Company. The land is situated in Marion county, and is alleged to have been patented to the state of Mississippi by the United States under an act of congress (Act Sept. 28, 1850, chapter 84, 9 Stat. 519); and by virtue of an act of the legislature of 1871 (Laws 1871, chapter 169), entitled "An act to create the Pearl River Improvement & Navigation Company, and for other purposes," said land was patented to that company, through whom this appellant claims title.
The bill alleges that the state, after its patent to the Pearl River Improvement & Navigation Company, conveyed this land to appellee's grantor, whose claim of title this bill seeks to cancel. The bill alleges that this land is remote from Pearl river and not affected by the waters of that stream but it is claimed that section 6, article 8, of the Constitution of 1868, was intended to embrace all swamp lands situated in the several counties lying on Pearl river, and therefore, the act of the legislature of 1871 was not in conflict with the Constitution when it attempted to patent said swamp lands to the Pearl River Improvement & Navigation Company, since such lands had not been set aside for school purposes by the Constitution; said lands being within the exceptions contemplated by it. A demurrer to the bill was sustained, from which comes this appeal.
Affirmed.
L. Henington, for appellant.
T. M. & J. D. Miller and Alexander & Alexander, for appellee.
The record in this case has been lost and the reporter is unable to give the briefs of counsel.
There is no merit in the contention of appellant, and the decree of the court below, sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the bill, is correct.
In view of section 6, article 8, of the Constitution of Mississippi of 1868, which provides "that there shall be established a common school fund, which shall consist of the proceeds of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dresser v. Hathorn
...Hines Yellow Pine Trustees v. Martin et al., 69 L.Ed. 604. It does not appear from the official report in the Hardy-Hartman case and in the Tynes case when and to the Pearl River Improvement & Navigation Company parted with its claim of title to the land, and the records in those cases are ......
-
Edward Hines Yellow Pine Trustees v. State ex rel. Moore
...of facts. On page 41 of their brief, counsel for appellant, contemplating the delectable but purely illusive (here) authority of the Tynes case, shrewdly "It will be further observed by the court that appellees have solemnly admitted in this agreed statement of facts that the lands involved......
-
Yazoo & M.V.R. Co. v. Sunflower County
...by the state of Georgia were not embraced in the provision of the Constitution of 1868 which the court had under consideration in the Tynes case, 54 So. 885. That therefore, does not directly or impliedly overrule the case of Jones v. Madison County, where this court squarely upheld the pow......
-
Edward Hines Yellow Pine Trustees v. Martin
... ... Improvement & Navigation Company, under which complainants ... claim, is the same patent involved in the cases of ... Southern Pine Co. v. Hall, 105 F. 84, 44 C.C.A. 363, ... and Becker v. Columbia Bank, 112 Miss. 819, 73 So ... 798; but these particular lands were not ... On suggestion of error, seeking to have the court declare ... that the distinction drawn in that opinion between that case ... and Tynes v. Southern Pine Co., 100 Miss. 129, 54 ... So. 885, unsound, they say: ... 'We ... are not concerned here with the correctness of the ... ...