Alabama State Land Co. v. Matthews

• Decision Date: 20 January 1910
• Citation: 168 Ala. 200,53 So. 174
• Parties: ALABAMA STATE LAND CO. v. MATTHEWS.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

53 So. 174

168 Ala. 200

ALABAMA STATE LAND CO. v. MATTHEWS.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 20, 1910

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1910.

Appeal from Tuscaloosa County Court; Henry B. Foster, Judge.

Ejectment by the Alabama State Land Company against W. S. Matthews. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The following charges were given for the defendant:

"(3) The court charges the jury that openness and notoriety and exclusiveness of possession are shown by such acts in respect of the land in its condition at the time as comport with ownership--such acts as would ordinarily be performed by the true owners in appropriating the land or its avails to his own use, and in preventing others from the use of it as far as reasonably practicable."

"(5) The court charges the jury that if they believe from the evidence that the defendant was in the actual possession of a part of the land described in the complaint throughout the year 1886, and that he was claiming all the lands described in the complaint under a bond for title describing the same executed by N.M. Clements in 1872, then the deed from Swann & Billups, as trustees, to the Alabama State Land Company, dated December 8, 1886, is void as against the defendant, and the plaintiff cannot recover upon the title attempted to be conveyed by that deed.

"(6) The court charges the jury that if they believe from the evidence that the defendant was in the actual possession of a part of the land described in the complaint throughout the year 1891, and that he was then tending all the land described in the complaint under a bond for title describing the same executed to him by N.M. Clements, and that prior to the year 1891 he had paid said Clements the entire amount of the purchase money on the land described in the said bond for title, then the deed from N.M Clements to the Alabama State Land Company, dated November 9, 1891, is void as against the defendant, and the plaintiff cannot recover upon the title attempted to be conveyed by that deed."

"(9) The court charges the jury that to constitute an actual possession of land it is only necessary to put it to such use or exercise such dominion over it as in its present state it is reasonably adapted to."

"(12) The court charges the jury that the adverse possession of land is a fact continuous in its nature, and that if it be shown to have existed at any time it will be presumed to have continued thereafter until evidence is adduced showing that it is not.

"(13) The court charges the jury that the possession of lands is a fact continuous in its nature, and when once shown to exist it will be presumed to continue until or unless the contrary is shown.

"(14) The court charges the jury that if they believe from the evidence that the defendant entered upon the land sued for in the year 1872 or 1873 under a contract for its purchase from Col. N.M. Clements, and that he received from said Clements in the year 1873 a bond for title describing said lands, and undertaking to convey them to him upon payment of their agreed price, and that for a period of more than 10 years after the 8th day of February 1877, he was in the continuous, open, actual, visible, notorious, and exclusive possession of a part of the lands sued for, claiming in good faith the whole thereof under his contract of purchase, and bond for title from said Clements, then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this action upon the title conveyed by the deed introduced in evidence from Swann & Billups, as trustees, to the Alabama State Land Company, dated December 8, 1886.

"(15) The court charges the jury that if they believe from the evidence that the defendant entered upon the lands sued for in the year 1872 or 1873 under a contract for their purchase from Col. N.M. Clements, and that he received from said Clements in the year 1873 a bond for title describing said lands, and undertaking to convey them to him in payment of their agreed price, that afterwards he paid and satisfied Clements in full of the agreed purchase price for the lands described in the bond, and that for a period of more than 10 years after making such full payment, and before this suit was brought, the defendant was in the continuous, open, actual, visible, notorious, and exclusive possession of a part of the lands sued for, claiming in good faith the whole thereof under his contract of purchase and bond for title from said Clements, then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this action under the deed from Col. N.M. Clements to the Alabama State Land Company, dated November 9, 1891."

The following charge was refused to the plaintiff:

"(G) Unless you are reasonably satisfied by your evidence that defendant paid Col. Clements all he agreed to pay him for the land he bought from Clements, then your verdict must be for the plaintiff."

J. A. W. Smith and Henry Fitts, for appellant.

Van de Graaff & Sprott, for appellee.

McCLELLAN J.

Common-law ejectment. The defense invoked was adverse possession under color of title. All of the assignments of error relate to charges bearing on this defense.

Charge 3, given for defendant (appellee), has the sanction of Goodson v. Brothers, 111 Ala. 589, 20 So. 443. We do not...