Archer v. Sibley

• Decision Date: 04 April 1918
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 105
• Citation: 78 So. 849,201 Ala. 495
• Parties: ARCHER v. SIBLEY.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

78 So. 849

201 Ala. 495

ARCHER v. SIBLEY.

8 Div. 105

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 4, 1918

Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; R.C. Brickell, Judge.

Unlawful detainer by Sarah E. Sibley against Henry L. Archer. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Cooper & Cooper, of Huntsville, for appellant.

Betts &amp Betts, of Huntsville, for appellee.

ANDERSON C.J.

This is an action of unlawful detainer, and the statute (section 4271 of the Code of 1907) expressly provides that the state or merits of the title cannot be inquired into. Hill v Harris, 179 Ala. 619, 60 So. 917; Dent v Stovall, 75 So. 941. It is true that the following words: "But all legal and equitable defenses may be had against a recovery for damages or for the unlawful detention of the land"--were added to this section in bringing it from the Code of 1896, but just exactly what was meant by this addition is not free from difficulty, though it is evident that it was not intended to permit an inquiry into the title for the purpose of defeating the plaintiff's right to recover the possession. To hold that title could be inquired into to defeat the plaintiff's right to recover would not only permit the additional words to expressly contradict, but would in effect emasculate and original statute, and which should have no place in the book if the amendment is given the effect contended for by the appellant's counsel. The codifier notes that the amendment was made to meet the case of Davis v. Pou, 108 Ala. 443, 19 So. 362. An amendment was suggested by Coleman, J., in his opinion in said case, but which was not the opinion of the court "so as to authorize all legal defenses against a recovery for damages for the unlawful detention, or else not authorize a recovery of damages in an action of unlawful detainer." The codifier, or Code commission, seems to have adopted the first suggestion, and not the latter, and if we are to look to this opinion, the suggestion relates only to damages, and not to the right to recover possession, and the amendment was evidently intended to deal with the defense against the recovery of rent or damages for the detention which is provided for in other sections of the Code, to wit, sections 4273 and 4282. Therefore the defendant's effort to show title out of the plaintiff and into Thompson was not admissible to defeat plaintiff's right to recover possession; and, conceding that it was admissible in mitigation or diminution of damages, the evidence should have been limited, when offered, for the purpose for which it was relevant, and the trial court will not be put in error for excluding same in the form offered. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Favish, 196 Ala. 4, 71 So. 183; Farley v. Bay Shell Road, 125 Ala. 184, 27 So. 770. True, we have many cases relieving the court from reversible error for letting in evidence which should be limited, upon the idea that the objector should point out the objectional cause or ask for the limitation of same by instruction, but when evidence is offered which is good only as...