Murf v. Maupin

Citations

• 113 Miss. 670
• 74 So. 614

Syllabus

<p>1. Forcible Entry and Detainer. Judgment. Defective description.</p> <p>Where in an action for unlawful entry and detainer the judgment in the lower court was for the plaintiff, but plaintiff’s affidavit was uncertain as to the description of the land and the description in the judgment furnished no guide by which the property could be located, such judgment on appeal will be reversed.</p> <p>2. .Forcible Entry and Detainer. Possession. Burden of proof.</p> <p>Where in an unlawful entry and detainer suit, defendant denied possession of the premises sued for, it devolved on the plaintiff to point out what property he claimed was in possession of defendant.</p> <p>3. Same.</p> <p>If the defendant’s plea was that he was not in -possession, then the only judgment rendered could be one for cost against the plaintiff reciting that defendant disclaimed possession, or if issue joined, would involve only the issue as to whom should be taxed the cost.</p> <p>4. Same.</p> <p>If the controversy turns upon the title deeds as showing the right of possession, or if the title deeds were offered to show the right of possession, then in that event the title deeds would be admissible, not to prove title which is not involved, but to prove the right of possession, since right of possession frequently is determined by title.</p>