Yazoo County v. Falkner

• Decision Date: 23 October 1950
• Docket Number: No. 37604,37604
• Citation: 209 Miss. 641,48 So.2d 137
• Parties: YAZOO COUNTY v. FALKNER et al.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 137

48 So.2d 137

209 Miss. 641

YAZOO COUNTY v. FALKNER et al.

No. 37604.

Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division A.

Oct. 23, 1950.

Campbell & Campbell, Yazoo City, Stokes V. Robertson, Jackson, for appellant.

Henry & Barbour, Yazoo City, for appellee.

LEE, Justice.

This was a suit by Yazoo County to confirm and establish the boundary lines of Section 16, Township 9 North, Range 4 West, and to cancel the claims of the named defendants to three tracts of land, described in the bill. It was alleged that M. Falkner's tract contained 6.13 acres; Tom Hawkins, 11.73 acres; and J. V. Whitaker, 2.32 acres. The bill was filed on the authority of Senate Bill No. 397, Chapter 433, Loc. & Priv.Laws of 1944, under which the board of supervisors had chosen J. B. Williams to make a survey, and his map or plat thereof was duly filed, and made an exhibit to the bill.

The defendants by their answers, admitted that they were in possession of the lands in question; but denied that the survey correctly located the north boundary line of the 16th section. They averred that the lands were actually in Section 9, and did not constitute any part of Section 16. In addition, their answer contained a plea that the same controversy arose between the county and the then owners in 1914; that the county filed its suit to cancel their claims and remove them from possession; that those owners answered the bill, denied the allegations thereof, maintained that the north boundary of Section 16 was south of the described lands, and that such lands were not in fact in 16th section. It was further alleged that the chancery court of Yazoo County heard that controversy, and on October 13, 1915, by its final decree, established the boundary line between Sections 9 and 16, and determined that such lands were in Section 9; that an appeal was prosecuted by the county to this Court, and the decree therein, Yazoo County v. Richardson et al., was affirmed May 7, 1917, and reported in 75 So. 59.

The cause was set down for trial on the plea. The court found that it was sustained by the proof. The County declined to plead further and the case was dismissed with prejudice. From the decree entered, the complainant appeals here.

Since we are of the opinion that the decision in the former case is determinative of the question here, an analysis thereof is necessary.

That suit was instituted by the county, by its board to supervisors, in 1914, against James Richardson and wife, and Urias Childress and wife. It was alleged that Section 16, Township 9 North, Range 4 West, was held for school purposes, and had not been validly sold or leased; that it was the duty of the county, under Chapter 129, Code 1906, to institute and prosecute to effect all necessary suits to establish and confirm the title of 16th section lands in the county. It was charged that the defendants were in possession and claiming the fee title to 24 acres and 8 acres, respectively, of said section, in accordance with the survey of Lamar Fontaine. There was a prayer for a decree to put the complainant in possession in accordance with such survey, and for other purposes.

The defendants therein, by their answers, denied the allegations of the bill, and averred that they were not in possession of any lands in 16th section. They further alleged that, for many years, there had been uncertainty about the line between Sections 9 and 16; that various surveys had been made; that the surveys of Fontaine and Fairley differed; that the board was about to file a suit, when all of the parties made an agreement whereby J. A. Hammack was selected to make a survey and establish the boundary; that Hammack made the survey and staked out the boundary; and that it was the true boundary. They alleged, however, that if they were mistaken in this, then the survey of Fairly established the true boundary, and they should be put in possession according to it. They made their answer a cross-bill, and prayed for the establishment of the Hammack survey as the true boundary, or, in the alternative, that the Fairly survey be so declared.

The county answered the cross-bill. It denied that the parties entered into such agreement; that Hammack made a true survey; that such survey established the true boundary; that the board of supervisors had authority to make such agreement; and that such agreement was binding.

Four surveyors, among them Fontaine and Hammack, gave depositions. From this evidence the exact location of the line between these sections was in sharp dispute.

In its final decree of October 13, 1915, the Court found 'that the agreement dated May 16th 1914 between the parties is binding on all the parties, and that Hammack marked out the line between said Sections 9 and 16 under said agreement and in accordance with the same. It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the boundary between Sections 9 and 16, Township 9, Range 4 West, Yazoo County, Mississippi, is fixed as the line marked out and defined by the said J. A. Hammack, and the complainants and defendants, respectively, are entitled to and are hereby granted possession to said line, which is hereby established as the boundary line between said sections, and writs of possession may issue accordingly.'

The county appealed from that decree, and the same was affirmed by this Court on May 7, 1917, as appears in Yazoo County v. Richardson et al., 75 So. 59.

The appellees here, defendants below, by mesne conveyances and inheritance in due course acquired the title and possession of the identical land involved in the former case. Yazoo County was complainant in both suits. While the Richardsons and Childresses were defendants in the original suit, their successors in title are defendants in the present controversy.

There was proof to sustain the Chancellor in finding as follows: After the establishment of the line in that suit, fences and...