Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Karl Wiesenburg, Pascagoula, for appellants. I. The Chancery Court erred in finding that the lot described by metes and bounds in the amended bill of complaint, which description incorporated into the final decree, is identical with lot 112 of the plat made by Ralph Delmas, Surveyor, in the year 1927, and which plat is admittedly the only plat of the Orange Grove Cemetery Association subdivision from which lots were assigned. II. The Chancery Court erred in finding that sometime during the year 1945 the Orange Grove Cemetery Association assigned a portion of the lot claimed by Mr. and Mrs. Jim Poole to Ernest Green and wife, Lucille Green, when under the uncontradicted evidence that at no time was an assignment made to anyone of any part of any lot in said Orange Grove Cemetery Association subdivision. Collation of authorities: 10 Am. Jur., Cemeteries, Secs. 8, 10, 38, 39. Donald W. Cumbest, Watts Colmer, Pascagoula, for appellees. I. Cited and discussed the following authorities: Brown v. Hill, 284 Ill. 286, 119 N.E. 977; Sherrard v. Henry, 88 W. Va. 315, 106 S.E. 705, 21 L.R.A. 645; Wilkinson v. Strickland, 82 Miss. 709, 35 So. 177; 1 Am. Jur., Sec. 101 pp. 848, 867; 10 Am. Jur., Sec. 22 pp. 503-04, 514; 21 L.R.A. 97; 53 L.R.A. 729; Vol. VI, Cyc. of Law and Procedure, pp. 716-17.
Judges
  • HALL, J.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Karl Wiesenburg, Pascagoula, for appellants. I. The Chancery Court erred in finding that the lot described by metes and bounds in the amended bill of complaint, which description incorporated into the final decree, is identical with lot 112 of the plat made by Ralph Delmas, Surveyor, in the year 1927, and which plat is admittedly the only plat of the Orange Grove Cemetery Association subdivision from which lots were assigned. II. The Chancery Court erred in finding that sometime during the year 1945 the Orange Grove Cemetery Association assigned a portion of the lot claimed by Mr. and Mrs. Jim Poole to Ernest Green and wife, Lucille Green, when under the uncontradicted evidence that at no time was an assignment made to anyone of any part of any lot in said Orange Grove Cemetery Association subdivision. Collation of authorities: 10 Am. Jur., Cemeteries, Secs. 8, 10, 38, 39. Donald W. Cumbest, Watts Colmer, Pascagoula, for appellees. I. Cited and discussed the following authorities: Brown v. Hill, 284 Ill. 286, 119 N.E. 977; Sherrard v. Henry, 88 W. Va. 315, 106 S.E. 705, 21 L.R.A. 645; Wilkinson v. Strickland, 82 Miss. 709, 35 So. 177; 1 Am. Jur., Sec. 101 pp. 848, 867; 10 Am. Jur., Sec. 22 pp. 503-04, 514; 21 L.R.A. 97; 53 L.R.A. 729; Vol. VI, Cyc. of Law and Procedure, pp. 716-17.
Judges
  • HALL, J.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

GREEN, et al. v. POOLE, et ux.

1. Boundaries — evidence — line established between cemetery lots.

Evidence sustained finding of Chancellor as to location of boundary line between cemetery lots.

Headnote as approved by Hall, J.

HALL, J.

(Hn 1) This suit involves the boundary line between Lots 112 and 117 of the Orange Grove Cemetery in Jackson County. The exact location and description of this line was established by a civil engineer and the line which he found was supported by oral testimony as being correct. The special chancellor so found and we can not say that his finding is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The decree appealed from will therefore be affirmed.

Affirmed.

McGehee, C.J., and Lee, Holmes and Ethridge, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

GREEN, ET AL. v. POOLE, ET UX
(Feb 6, 1956)