Williams v. Patterson
Decision Date | 26 March 1945 |
Docket Number | 35797. |
Citation | 198 Miss. 120,21 So.2d 477 |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Parties | WILLIAMS v. PATTERSON et al. |
John Horan, of Water Valley, for appellant.
Ernest Kellner, of Greenville, for appellees.
This is a suit to confirm title in complainant below, appellant here to an alleged abandoned right of way formerly used by the Y & M. V. R. Co. in Washington County, and for damages against one of the several defendants, Patterson, who is specifically sued for taking appellant's alleged personal property of ties, rails and gravel from the lands in controversy, and for a permanent injunction to restrain defendants from trespasses of certain sorts enumerated in the prayer of the original bill.
The original bill was filed by appellant on February 17, 1943, in the Chancery Court of Washington County, to which a demurrer was interposed by appellee and sustained, with leave to appellant to amend his bill, which he did. The amended bill undertook to deraign the title of the appellant from the government down to and including his own title, which deraignment ie exceedingly lengthy and involved and voluminous, taking up approximately twelve pages of the bill. The immediate links in the deraignment particularly involved in this action are several, starting with deeds from Patty Campbell and others dated in 1885, conveying a right of way to the Memphis & New Orleans R. R. & Levee Company, a Mississippi corporation, which in June of the same year conveyed it by deed of trust to Edward H Pardee and Albert Trolius, trustees, to secure certain indebtedness. In 1887 this trust deed was foreclosed, and the property conveyed at said foreclosure to Chas. M. Calhoun who, on the same day, conveyed it to the Louisville, New Orleans & Texas R. Co., which in 1892, by duly recorded Articles of Consolidation, was consolidated with the Y. & M. V. R. Co. It is alleged that thereby all the property rights, privileges and franchises of the two companies involved in the Articles of Consolidation passed to, and became vested in, the consolidated company, to-wit, the Y. & M. V. R. Co., a Mississippi corporation. The Y. & M. V. R. Co., by quit-claim deed on April 2, 1942, conveyed to appellant all its rights, title, interest and claim in and to the property, which is a strip of land 100 feet wide, lying in Washington County. In June of the same year the Y. & M. V. R. Co. conveyed to appellant by quitclaim deed all of its rights, title, interest and claim to an additional strip of land 100 feet wide in Washington County. Over these strips of land the Y. & M. V. R. Co. had operated a line of railway prior to its conveyances to appellant.
On October 24, 1892, the Y. & M. V. R. Co., it is charged, 'went into possession, and took absolute possession over said lands herein made the subject matter of this suit, exercised absolute control, possession and ownership over the land, using the same as its own lands, and held them adversely against all the world, and continued so to do for nearly fifty years, until April 2, 1942, for the first tract, and until June 18, 1942, for the second tract, and established absolute ownership thereof by adverse possession and occupation, and then conveyed all its title therein to this complainant (appellant here), who holds by himself, and through his predecessors adversely against the entire world for fifty years, and now has a fee simple title hereto.'
A typical deed of the grantors of the right of way to the Memphis & New Orleans R. & Levee Co., all of said deeds being in the same language, in the habendum clause, is as follows: Under these conveyances we think the grantee went into possession of a right of way for railroad purposes only.
The charter of the Memphis & New Orleans R. & Levee Co., original purchaser of the right of way as to the land in controversy, was granted by the Legislature of the State of Mississippi by Chapter 544, Laws 1882, Section 7 thereof being the pertinent part of the charter involved herein, which reads as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gregory v. United States
...601 So. 2d 834, 837 (Miss. 1992) (citing New Orleans and Northeastern R.R. v. Morrison, 35 So. 2d 68 (Miss. 1948); Williams v. Patterson, 21 So. 2d 477 (Miss. 1945)). By contrast, "[i]nstruments that specifically refer to a strip, parcel, or tract of land have been held to convey a fee."Id.......
-
Gregory v. United States
...601 So. 2d 834, 837 (Miss. 1992) (citing New Orleans and Northeastern R.R. v. Morrison, 35 So. 2d 68 (Miss. 1948); Williams v. Patterson, 21 So. 2d 477 (Miss. 1945)). By contrast, "[i]nstruments that specifically refer to a strip, parcel, or tract of land have been held to convey a fee."Id.......
-
Blalock v. Conzelman
...the land of another cannot change the character of his right to an adverse holding of the land itself...." Williams v. Patterson, 198 Miss. 120, 129, 21 So.2d 477, 480 (1945). See O'Banion v. Cunningham, 168 Ky. 322, 323, 182 S.W. 185, 186 (1916). More specifically, O'Banion "By the purchas......
-
Dossett v. New Orleans Great Northern R. Co.
...point', a consideration of them is helpful in illustrating the factors which the Court deems important. The case of Williams v. Patterson, 198 Miss. 120, 21 So.2d 477 (1945) is somewhat similar to the facts in the present case. In that case this Court held that the instrument gave a 'right-......