248 So. 2d 444 - Johnstone v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Because of the mutuality of their interests, possession and obligations, the relationship between cotenants is confidential and fiduciary in nature. Each has a duty to sustain, or at least not to assail, the common interest, and to sustain and protect the common title. It is a relationship of trust and confidence between co-owners of property, 86 C.J.S., Tenancy in Common, § 17. “. . . Because of the relationship between tenants in common, possession which in ordinary cases would constitute adverse possession is not sufficient where entry was made as a tenant in common.” 222 Miss. at 221 , 75 So.2d at 629 . “We do not think that the mere recording alone of a fee simple deed by a co-tenant ‘imparts notice’ to other cotenants of an adverse claim to land by the grantee-cotenant, and do not think that ‘this is as effectual for setting the statute in motion as actual notice would have been’, as was held in Peeples [Peeples v. Boykin, 132 Miss. 359 , 96 So. 177 ]. This ignores the nature of the relationship of tenants in common, and the fact that a tenant in common out of possession is entitled to assume that a cotenant in possession holds for all cotenants, until he is given knowledge to the contrary, or the equivalent thereof, which must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. As was said in Hulvey v. Hulvey, 92 Va. 182 , 23 S.E. 233, 235 (1895). ‘No one is required to watch the clerk’s office to see that those in possession of property in privity with him or in subordination”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Speight v. Wheeler