Opinion
No. 41527.
October 3, 1960.
1. Boundaries — adjoining landowners — adverse possession — evidence — presented question for trier of facts.
In action concerning location of a line between certain lands, evidence presented a question for the trier of facts as to whether claimants to the lands were the owners thereof by reason of their alleged open and adverse possession for the statutory period.
Headnote as approved by Lee, J.
APPEAL from the Chancery Court of Warren County; S.B. THOMAS, Chancellor.
Brunini, Everett, Grantham Quin, George Chaney, Vicksburg, for appellant.
I. The evidence did establish adverse possession by the Austins. Geoghegan v. Krauss (Miss.), 87 So.2d 461; Hays v. Lyon, 192 Miss. 858, 7 So.2d 523; Mustain v. Smith (Ark.), 63 S.W.2d 537; Snowden McSweeney v. Henley, 195 Miss. 682, 16 So.2d 24.
Dent, Ward, Martin Terry, Vicksburg, for appellee.
I. There was ample testimony to sustain the Chancellor's ruling that adverse possession was not proven. Boatright v. Horton, 233 Miss. 444, 102 So.2d 373; Neal v. Newburger Co. 154 Miss. 691, 123 So. 861.
II. Appellants failed to offer any proof as to the legal description of the lands claimed by them. Evans v. Shows, 180 Miss. 518, 177 So. 786; Page v. O'Neal, 207 Miss. 350, 42 So.2d 391; Parks v. Simmons, 232 Miss. 581, 52 So.2d 14; McElroy's Mississippi Evidence, Sec. 180.
III. Appellee should be allowed damages on appeal. Sec. 1971, Code 1942.
This lawsuit involved a dispute concerning the location of the line between the lands of the appellants and the appellee.
By stipulation, it was agreed that the appellee is the owner of the record title to the lands in dispute.
The appellants contended, however, that they are the owners of the land in dispute by reason of their open and adverse possession thereof for the statutory period.
(Hn 1) Without going into detail, it is sufficient to say that the issue as to adverse possession was in sharp dispute; and it was the province of the chancellor to determine which version was true. This Court cannot say that he was manifestly wrong in his conclusion that the appellants failed in their proof to meet the burden.
Besides, the appellants failed to introduce a map or other evidence to identify sufficiently and with certainty the land to which they claim that they acquired title by adverse possession. Evans v. Shows, 180 Miss. 518, 177 So. 786; Page v. O'Neal, 207 Miss. 350, 42 So.2d 391; Parks v. Simmons, (Miss.) 52 So.2d 14.
Thus it follows that the decree of the court, which cancelled and removed as a cloud the claim of the appellants to the lands of the appellee, as therein described, must be affirmed. At the same time appellee's claim for five percent damages, under Section 1971, Code of 1942 Rec., is not allowable.
Affirmed.
McGehee, C.J., and Kyle, Arrington and Gillespie, JJ., concur.