Savage v. Parrish
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- Allen Cronier v. ALR Partners L.P. (Miss. Ct. App. 2017)
- Nelson v. Bonner (Miss. Ct. App. 2002)
- Bobby W. Anderson v. Jerry Fisher, Edsel Fisher, Woodley D. Fisher and Raymond L. Fisher, and All Other Person/Entities Having or Claiming any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, or Interest in the Following Described Property: Lots 29 and 30 in Section 4, Township 16 North, Range 4 East; and Lots 1 and 2 in Section 9, Township 16 North, Range 4 East; located in the Second Judicial District of Carroll County, Mississippi (Miss. Ct. App. 2019)
- Stallings v. Bailey (Miss. 1990)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Title to a strip of land in Warren County, Mississippi, was confirmed in Leon T. Parrish and wife, and the adverse possession claim of Lester Savage and others was rejected by the Chancery Court of Warren County, Mississippi. The Savages appeal, alleging that the chancellor was manifestly wrong and that his judgment was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The two assignments are not couched in precisely that language, but that is their effect.
The chancellor is the trier of the facts and in this case he was not convinced that the Savages established adverse possession. Based upon our decision in Johnson v. Black, 469 So.2d 88, 90 (Miss. 1985), and Hans v. Hans, 482 So.2d 1117, 1120 (Miss. 1986), we find this assignment to be without merit.
We again point to our decision in Johnson v. Black, supra, and the recent case of Farris v. Thomas, 481 So.2d 318 (Miss. 1985), where we were called upon to determine whether the judgment of the lower court was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence in accepting a boundary line between two adjoining parcels of land. Therein we said:
We find that the determination of the legal boundary between the Farrises and the Branches was a question of fact for determination by the chancellor, whose decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless manifestly in error. Voss v. Stewart, 420 So.2d 761, 765 (Miss. 1982).
This assignment is without merit.
The finding that the chancellor was not manifestly wrong topples the first domino. In turn, that domino topples the second domino, and we may not say that the chancellor’s determination was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
AFFIRMED.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.