James v. Drew
Mississippi Supreme Court
FroM the circuit court of Washington county. HoN. George WINSTON, Judge. Ejectment by appellees against appellants. The facts essential to an understanding of the only point passed upon by the court are stated in the opinion. The verdict and judgment were in favor of plaintiffs. Motion for a new trial was overruled, and defendants appealed.
Read the full summary
FroM the circuit court of Washington county. HoN. George WINSTON, Judge. Ejectment by appellees against appellants. The facts essential to an understanding of the only point passed upon by the court are stated in the opinion. The verdict and judgment were in favor of plaintiffs. Motion for a new trial was overruled, and defendants appealed. The effect of the rulings of the court upon the admissibility of evidence was that the shortage must fall on the northern tier of sections, and consequently that the land in controversy instead of being in sections 2 and 3 was in sections 10 and 11. This…
1Opinion of the CourtWoods, C. J.
The record in the case before us presents for consideration the rights of ownership in interior and exterior sections of land in a particular township in which, as is alleged and shown for appellees, there is a shortage, on north and south lines, of about 17 chains. It is the case of a lost boundary between interior and exterior sections. The question is, shall the shortage fall upon the exterior northern tier of sections, or shall it be apportioned ratably between the exterior and interior sections, the boundary line between which, as originally established and marked out upon the ground,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Jones v. KimbleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1865
3Cited by5 opinions
- Chandler v. HibberdCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Galbraith v. ParkerArizona Supreme Court · 1915
- Littlejohn v. FinkNebraska Supreme Court · 1922
- Luther v. WalkerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
- City of Jacksonville v. BrowardSupreme Court of Florida · 1935