Opinion ID: 1731824
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Adverse Possession Claim

Text: There is even less merit to Bay Springs' adverse possession claim. At trial Bay Springs contended vigorously that the 79 acres in question had become the property of Grissom (and his predecessors in interest) by adverse possession. There was, to be sure, substantial evidence offered by Bay Springs which tended to support this contention. Our review of the proceedings at trial, however, has revealed substantial testimony to the contrary. For example, Mrs. Jessie Vance Sistrunk, who was married for 50 years to Grissom's predecessor in title, recognized the Wades' property line and that prior timber cutting had not encroached upon it. Odell Loper, a neighbor, also gave testimony supportive of the Wades. The adverse possession issue in this case was essentially one of fact. It was submitted to the jury on conflicting evidence and proper instructions. The jury resolved the issue against Bay Springs. It requires little familiarity with the institutional structure of our judicial system to know that this Court does not sit to redetermine questions of fact. Our scope of review is severely limited. We consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict has been made. We disregard any evidence on the part of the moving party in conflict with that evidence (although, of course, we may consider uncontradicted evidence offered by the moving party). If there be credible evidence, and reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom, which would support the verdict reached by the jury, that verdict must stand. See, e.g., General Tire and Rubber Co. v. Darnell, 221 So.2d 104, 105 (Miss. 1969); Paymaster Oil Mill Co. v. Mitchell, 319 So.2d 652, 657 (Miss. 1975); Buford v. Jitney Jungle Stores of America, Inc., 388 So.2d 146, 147 (Miss. 1980); Gee v. Hawkins, 402 So.2d 825, 827 (Miss. 1981); and City of Jackson v. Locklar, 431 So.2d 475, 478-479 (Miss. 1983). Under these familiar principles and cases, the verdict of the jury in favor of the Wades and against Bay Springs on the adverse possession issue is clearly beyond our power to disturb.