Opinion
No. 38909.
November 2, 1953.
1. Adverse possession — trespass — boundaries — value of timber cut — evidence supported decree for cross-complainant.
In suit to establish boundaries, for value of timber cut on complainant's land, and for injunction against further trespasses, wherein defendants denied charge of trespass and filed cross-bill claiming land by adverse possession, evidence supported decree confirming title to land in cross-complainants and in awarding them sum for value of timber wrongfully cut by cross-defendant.
Headnote as approved by Holmes, J.
APPEAL from the chancery court of Simpson County; NEVILLE PATTERSON, Chancellor.
R.C. Russell, Billy C. Little, Magee, for appellant.
Cited and discussed the following cases:
Alabama V.R.Y. v. Joseph, et al., 125 Miss. 454, 87 So. 421; Deaux, et al. v. Delisle Lumber Co., 112 Miss. 325, 73 So. 53; Gillis, et al. v. Smith, et al., 114 Miss. 665, 75 So. 451; Leavonworth v. Reeves, 106 Miss. 722, 64 So. 660; McCarty, et al. v. Lane, Supt., 145 Miss. 330, 110 So. 795; Northern Assurance Co., et al. v. Newman Lumber Co., 105 Miss. 688, 63 So. 209; Parnell v. Glidewell, 142 Miss. 77, 107 So. 273; Rice, et al. v. Robinson Lumber Co., 110 Miss. 607, 70 So. 817.
A.K. Edwards, Mendenhall, for appellees.
The appellant brought this suit in the Chancery Court of Simpson County against the appellees, seeking to have the court establish the boundaries between certain lands claimed by him and certain lands claimed by the appellees, alleging that appellees had wrongfully cut timber on his lands and seeking recovery for the value thereof, and praying the issuance of an injunction to enjoin the appellees from further trespasses on his lands. The appellees answered, denying the charges of trespass and made their answer a cross-bill wherein they alleged that they had been in adverse possession of the lands claimed by them since the year 1922, and that appellant had wrongfully cut timber thereon, and they prayed that title to certain of the lands claimed by them be confirmed and that they be awarded a decree against the appellant for the sum of $150.00 for the timber alleged by them to have been wrongfully cut by the appellant.
After hearing the evidence, the chancellor rendered his decree confirming in the appellees the title to the lands claimed by them as against the claims of the appellant, and awarding to the appellees the sum of $150.00 as the value of the timber alleged by them to have been wrongfully cut from their lands. From the action of the chancellor, the appellants prosecute this appeal.
The issues involved were merely issues of fact which the chancellor resolved in favor of the appellees. It can serve no useful purpose to detail the evidence introduced on behalf of the respective parties. It is sufficient to observe that the evidence was conflicting and we do not feel warranted in saying that the chancellor's findings on the facts were manifestly wrong. (Hn 1) There was ample evidence to support his decree. The decree of the court below is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
McGehee, C.J., and Hall, Arrington, and Ethridge, JJ., concur.