Woodruff v. Roysden
| Decision Date | 20 October 1900 |
| Citation | 58 S.W. 1066 |
| Parties | WOODRUFF et al. v. ROYSDEN et al. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Ejectment by Margaret L. Woodruff and others against W. R. Roysden and others. From a decree for complainants, defendants appeal. Affirmed as to defendant John Carson, and reversed as to defendant Chandler.
Templeton & Carlock, for appellants. Norman B. Morrell and Lucky, Sanford & Fowler, for appellees.
This is an action of ejectment to recover 1,000 acres of land in Scott and Fentress counties. There are two bills, consolidated and heard together in the court below; and the controversy, as it comes to this court, only involves 1,000 acres, or so much of a 5,000-acre tract as is embraced in two deeds from Cyrene Carson and wife, — one to Chandler & Smith, of date November 6, 1882, and the other to John Carson, dated December 27, 1887. These deeds purport to convey an undivided interest of two-thirds to Chandler & Smith, and one-third to John Carson. The complainants deraign their title from the state, while the defendants claim under the deeds stated, coupled with more than seven years' adverse possession. The court of chancery appeals, after reviewing the evidence, reports that the Carsons entered upon the land and erected improvements in 1885, and went to live upon it in 1886, and the deed was made to John Carson in 1887, and from that time, up to the filing of the bills in these causes, John Carson was in actual possession of the land, claiming for himself and his co-tenants, Chandler & Smith, openly, continuously, exclusively, and adversely; that is, he occupied the land with his father, the latter being at the head of the household. And that court concludes, as a matter of law, that, being a mixed possession, the true possession and holding are in the son, who had the legal title.
The bill against John Carson was filed July 13, 1896, or over eight years after he had taken and been in possession, and the court of chancery appeals concludes that he is protected by his plea of seven years' adverse possession under the statute of limitations. And this we think is correct, even if the son be a minor. McLemore v. Durivage, 92 Tenn. 482, 22 S. W. 207, and cases there cited.
The bill against Chandler (for Smith is not sued) was filed December 27, 1894. He was never in actual possession, but insists that the successive possessions of Cyrene and John Carson inured to his benefit, they being tenants in common with him; that is, Cyrene Carson from 1882 to 1887, and John Carson after that date. The court of chancery appeals reports that the Carsons, father and son, entered upon the land in 1885, and made improvements, and that they moved upon it in 1886, and continued to occupy it till these suits were brought. Cyrene Carson claimed the land under a deed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Nyreen
...also, Newman v. Bank of California, 80 Cal. 368, 22 P. 261, 5 L.R.A. 467; Cook v. Spivey, Tex.Civ.App., 174 S.W.2d 634; Woodruff v. Roysden, 105 Tenn. 491, 58 S.W. 1066. Clearly the possession of Carl W. Nyreen of the surface and of the minerals was the possession of all the tenants in comm......
-
Smith v. Cross
...of the husband and wife inures to the benefit of the wife. Templeton v. Twitty, 88 Tenn. 595, 14 S. W. 435; Woodruff v. Roysden, 105 Tenn. 491, 58 S. W. 1066, 80 Am. St. Rep. 905. The legal presumption is that the possession is with the legal title. Welcker v. Staples, 88 Tenn. 49, 51, 12 S......
-
Big Run Coal & Clay Co. v. Helton
...of the parcel must be deemed to be that of all of the cotenants. At least one court has specifically so held. See Woodruff v. Roysden, 105 Tenn. 491, 58 S.W. 1066. It is our opinion that the adverse possession by George Calvin of the parcel here in question, incident to his occupancy of the......
-
Teeples v. Key
...and under the same title, may be connected so as to make out the time to create the bar of T.C.A. § 28-203. Woodruff v. Roysden (1900), 105 Tenn. 491, 58 S.W. 1066; Northcut et al., v. Church et al. (1915), 135 Tenn. 541, 188 S.W. 220; Baker v. Hale (1873), 65 Tenn. In fact, however, the pl......