Case Name: Lara LEE v. CREOSOTE OIL CORP. OF MISSISSIPPI
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1970-06-01
Citations: 236 So. 2d 368
Docket Number: No. 45839
Parties: Lara LEE v. CREOSOTE OIL CORP. OF MISSISSIPPI.
Judges: GILLESPIE, P. J., and PATTERSON, SMITH and ROBERTSON, JJ„ concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 236
Pages: 368–369

Head Matter:
Lara LEE v. CREOSOTE OIL CORP. OF MISSISSIPPI.
No. 45839.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
June 1, 1970.
Rehearing Denied July 2, 1970.
William E. Andrews, Jr., Purvis, for appellant.
Simrall, Aultman & Pope, Hattiesburg, for appellee.

Opinion:
INZER, Justice:
Appellee, Creosote Oil Corporation of Mississippi, filed a bill of complaint in the Chancery Court of Forrest County seeking to enjoin appellant from trespassing upon certain of its lands in that county. Appellant answered and denied the allegations of the bill of complaint and by a cross bill sought to establish title to the land in question by adverse possession. Appellee answered denying that appellant had acquired any part of the land in question by adverse possession.
On the trial of the cause it was stipulated that deraignment of title was waived by both parties and that the issue before the court was the issue of adverse possession. It was also stipulated that appellee had record title to the land in question and if appellant prevailed by proving title by adverse possession, a decree would be rendered confirming title of appellant, but if appellant failed to prove title by adverse possession then the court would grant the relief prayed for in the bill of complaint.
After a rather lengthy hearing the .trial court held that appellant failed to prove that he had acquired title to the land in question by adverse possession. The court specifically pointed out that the proof failed to establish uninterrupted possession and occupancy for the ten year period required by statute. A careful review of the record convinces us that the trial court was eminently correct in holding that appellant had failed to establish title to the land in question by adverse possession, not only for the reason specifically stated, but a^so ^or other reasons,
We find no merit in any of the errors assigned and for this reason this case is affirmed.
Affirmed.
GILLESPIE, P. J., and PATTERSON, SMITH and ROBERTSON, JJ" concur.