30 So. 563 (Ala. 1901), Guice v. Barr

Citation:30 So. 563, 130 Ala. 570
Opinion Judge:TYSON, J.
Party Name:GUICE v. BARR.
Attorney:A. H. Merrill, for appellant. S. H. Dent, Jr., for appellee.
Case Date:June 14, 1901
Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Page 563

30 So. 563 (Ala. 1901)

130 Ala. 570




Supreme Court of Alabama

June 14, 1901

Appeal from chancery court, Barbour county; W. L. Parks, Chancellor.

Bill by Lizzie H. Barr against Stella D. Guice to establish a boundary line. From the decree, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The defendant demurred to the bill, stating in various ways the ground that the facts stated therein did not show that the complainant was entitled to the relief prayed for. This demurrer was overruled. On the final submission of the cause on the pleadings and proof the chancellor decreed that the complainant was entitled to the relief prayed for, and appointed three commissioners "to lay off and establish a line between the lots of complainant and respondent, and near as may be to the original line in dispute shown in the pleadings in this case," etc. The commissioners so appointed made their report, in which they stated that upon the day designated by them they went upon the property, accompanied by the agents and representatives of the complainant and respondent, respectively, and, after hearing the evidence and examining the lines between the property, they established and fixed a certain line, which is specifically described in their report. To this report of the commissioners the respondent excepted upon the following grounds: "(1) Said report is at variance with the evidence upon which the same is based. (2) Said report is contrary to the evidence submitted to and considered by said commissioners. (3) Said report is too vague and uncertain. (4) Said report fails to determine whether or not the line fixed by the same is different from the line as marked when the bill was filed." Upon the submission of the cause upon the report of the commissioners the objections and exceptions to the report were overruled and held for naught, the report was in all things confirmed, and the line as designated and fixed by the commissioners was established by the decree of the court as the correct boundary line between the adjoining lots of the complainant and respondent.

A. H. Merrill, for appellant.

S. H. Dent, Jr., for appellee.


The bill in this cause, as amended, after averring the ownership of the two adjoining lots to be in the complainant and respondent, giving a description of each, alleges that the respondent "has at various times moved the line between said...

To continue reading