Anderson v. Adams

• Decision Date: 27 September 1973
• Parties: Frank ANDERSON et al. v. Joe H. ADAMS. SC 265.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 416

283 So.2d 416

291 Ala. 523

Frank ANDERSON et al. v. Joe H. ADAMS.

SC 265.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Sept. 27, 1973.

Cope & Cope, Union Springs, Miller & Hoffmann, Montgomery, for appellants.

Russell L. Irby, Eufaula, for appellee.

McCALL, Justice.

The appellee, Joe H. Adams, sued to enjoin the appellants, Mayor and Councilmen of the City of Union Springs, and the municipality itself (City), from selling a parcel of land of about 1 1/2 acres in area to the appellant, Communications Equipment and Contracting Company, Inc. (CEAC), who intervened in the cause. From an adverse final decree, making permanent a temporary injunction against the original respondent-appellants, enjoining the sale to the appellant CEAC, or anyone, except for burial purposes, and decreeing the contract to sell the land invalid, the original respondents and the intervenor, CEAC, have appealed.

The issue in the case is whether or not this parcel which had become affected with a public use for a cemetery could be sold by the City to CEAC under the power granted by Tit. 37, § 477(1), Code of Alabama, Recompiled 1958, which reads as follows:

'The governing body of any city or town in this state may, by ordinance to be entered on its minutes, direct the disposal of any real property, not needed for public or municipal purposes, and direct the mayor to make title thereto; and a conveyance made by the mayor in accordance with such ordinance invests the grantee with the title of the municipality.'

The 1 1/2 acre parcel adjoins along the east side of a 2 1/2 acre tract of equal depth which is now owned by CEAC, and both are part of an original 10 acre tract that the City acquired in 1962 by purchase and conveyance from the grantors, Lee Padgett and others, without any limitations or trust being imposed as to the use to which the land would be put. The bill for injunctive relief seeks to prevent the mayor and councilmen from conveying the 1 1/2 acre parcel to CEAC, which will use it for industrial expansion. The appellee, whose mother is buried in the cemetery, brings his bill as a taxpaying citizen of the city, alleging that the 1 1/2 acre parcel cannot be put to a different use or purpose from that for which it was acquired and is being used by the City, that is, a public cemetery. Pursuant to its intent to convey to CEAC, the City passed a resolution stating that the parcel in question was no longer needed for public or municipal purposes and that it is in the public interest to sell it to CEAC. The authority to convey is sought to be invoked under the above statute Tit. 37, § 477(1) of the Code.

The chancellor after hearing the evidence ore tenus in open court at the trial, stated as a finding in his final decree, the following:

'The Court finds from the evidence, as has already been stated, that the City acquired the entire ten acres for a cemetery and is of the opinion that the entire tract remaining after the prior sale fo two-and-a-half-acres thereof to said CEAC is being used by the City as such. The property in question is located adjacent to U.S. Highway 82 on the south side of Union Springs and is a gently sloping hillside lot, all of which is in view of said highway. The Court, in going to and from Union Springs for the past several years, has been familiar with the property from a casual examination of same and has made a closer inspection since the filing of this suit. The property in question was at the time of the filing of this suit, and has been for a considerable period of time prior thereto, maintained in its entirety in a manner consistant (sic) with being a cemetery. The grounds are well kept with the grass being mowed regularly, and the entire tract is maintained in this manner. On the north and south property lines there are planted hedges and ornamental shrubs. There is no physical marker or line of demarcation upon the ground to indicate that any of the property is being used in any manner different from the rest. There is nothing to indicate to a casual observer or to a prospective purchaser of a burial plot that any of the property is an industrial park or is anything except part of the cemetery. For this reason the Court feels that even if the entire property were not being used by the City as a cemetery, although originally bought for this purpose, the City treats it as such; therefore, the City should be estopped from asserting otherwise.'

The final decree (1) permanently enjoined the City from selling the remaining cemetery property, or any portion thereof to CEAC, or any other person, firm, or corporation except for cemetery purposes, and (2) declared the sales agreement or contract of sale by the City for the conveyance of the 1 1/2 acre parcel of land to CEAC null and void.

Without setting forth any of the evidence produced at the trial, we can without hesitation say that it was ample to support and compatible with the findings of fact made by the chancellor in his final decree to the effect that the entire tract remaining after the prior sale of 2 1/2 acres to CEAC, had been acquired in 1962 for a cemetery and was, at the time of initiating the second sale to CEAC, being maintained and used for a cemetery. It is to be noted also that the chancellor viewed and personally inspected the premises; and, when this occurs, the decree is reviewed here as if it were a verdict of a jury. McNeil v. Hadden, 261 Ala. 691, 76 So.2d 160; McGilberry v. Rabon, 286 Ala. 312, 239 So.2d 745.

In Casey v. Keeney, 290 Ala. 94, 98, 274 So.2d 68, 71, we said:

'* * * (T)he trial court in accordance with permissible practice, made a personal inspection of the property before making its finding of fact. Hence, the decree is reviewed here as if it were a verdict of a jury, not to be disturbed unless it is plainly and palpably contrary to the weight of the evidence. Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403, 72 So. 52; Monroe Bond and Mortgage Co. v. State, 254 Ala. 278, 48 So.2d 431; McNeil v. Hadden, supra (261 Ala. 691, 76 So.2d 160); Barnett v. Millis, supra, (286 Ala. 681, 246 So.2d 78).'

In the light of the chancellor's viewing and closely inspecting the subject...