Opinion ID: 1941185
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: was the chancellor manifestly wrong in his findings of fact?

Text: No cases are cited in support of this argument by appellant, other than the bald statement that adverse possession should lie and that the facts negate a finding of permissive use. Once again, the standard under this assignment as stated most recently in Johnson v. Black, 469 So.2d 88 (Miss. 1985), is that this Court has no authority to grant appellant any relief if there be substantial credible evidence in the record undergirding the determinative findings of fact made in the chancery court. 469 So.2d at 90. In summary, we find that: 1. In deciding whether there was a valid delivery, the chancellor had two presumptions to construe, namely, that recordation of a deed raises a presumption of delivery, and the retention of a deed by the grantor raises a presumption of non-delivery; 2. The cause of action definitely accrued, at the earliest, in 1975, and the suit was timely filed under Mississippi Code Annotated § 15-1-7 (1972); 3. The chancellor had substantial credible evidence to find permissive use on the part of Eddie; 4. Laches would not lie since the action was brought within the time limit set by § 15-1-7, and under Bright v. Michel, supra , each case must rest on its own bottom when dealing with the argument of estoppel; and 5. There was ample evidence admitted to show Eddie's claim of ownership of the property, notwithstanding the fact that the chancellor disallowed some evidence from admission to the record. Under the facts of this record and the present state of our law, we find no reversible error, and the decision of the Chancery Court is, therefore, affirmed. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., WALKER and ROY NOBLE LEE, P.JJ., and HAWKINS, DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.