Sutton v. Archer
Mississippi Supreme Court
Erom the chancery court of Washington county, Hon. Perot Bell, Chancellor. Sutton and others, appellants, were complainants in the court below; Archer and others, appellees, were defendants there. From a decree in defendants’ favor complainants appealed to the supreme court.
Read the full summary
Erom the chancery court of Washington county, Hon. Perot Bell, Chancellor. Sutton and others, appellants, were complainants in the court below; Archer and others, appellees, were defendants there. From a decree in defendants’ favor complainants appealed to the supreme court. Complainants’ suit was for confirmation of their alleged title, and cancellation of defendants’ claims, to land described as being in township 18, range 8, west, in Washington county, this state, and embracing what were originally Towhead island and Island No. 83, in the Mississippi Fiver. The complainants showed proper…
1Opinion of the CourtCalhoon, J.
If the decree final below was based by the learned court on the statute of limitations, on the evidence we are not warranted in reversing it. If based on finding that the land contended for is in the state of Arkansas, and that, therefore, the Mississippi court is without jurisdiction, we approve it. In this case we find merely a contested title, the parties fighting at arms’ length, and, if Mississippi courts may in this case take jurisdiction, they may do so in any case involving controversy of the right to land in any other state when they have the parties before them.
There is no question…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Tideway Oil Programs, Inc. v. SerioMississippi Supreme Court · 1983
- Sharp v. LearnedMississippi Supreme Court · 1938
- Amey v. Colebrook Guaranty Sav. BankCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1937
- Sharp v. LearnedMississippi Supreme Court · 1939