Atkins v. Cunningham, 6 Div. 798.

Decision Date02 April 1931
Docket Number6 Div. 798.
PartiesATKINS v. CUNNINGHAM.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lamar County; Ernest Lacy, Judge.

Bill to establish a disputed boundary line by T. S. Atkins against D W. Cunningham. From a decree for respondent, complainant appeals.

Affirmed.

Wilson Kelley, of Vernon, for appellant.

R. G Redden, of Vernon, for appellee.

THOMAS J.

The bill was to establish a disputed boundary line between coterminous and contiguous landowners.

The statutes having application are sections 6439, 6440, Code; Acts 1923, p. 764; and recent constructions thereof are found in Yauger v. Taylor, 218 Ala. 235, 118 So. 271; Steele v. Allen, 214 Ala 285, 107 So. 812; Vines v. Sligh, 221 Ala. 181, 128 So. 143. It is established that in a suit in equity to determine a boundary line, the court has authority to determine all questions, including the issue of adverse possession, essential to final adjudication and settlement of the true boundary line.

In respondent's answer are the following averments:

"The respondent admits that the complainant is the owner of the N.W. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4 of Sec. 16, T. 17, R. 15 West in Lamar County, Alabama, and that the respondent, D. W. Cunningham, owns and is in possession of the SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 of Sec. 9, T. 17, R. 15 West in Lamar County, Alabama, but that respondent denies that he is trespassing on any lands belonging to the complainant, but on the contrary avers that he is the owner and has been in possession of the land which is the subject of this controversy for more than twenty years, that such possession has been with the consent of the complainant, and has been open, notorious, hostile, undisputed, continuous, adverse, against the claims of all persons and with the knowledge of the complainant, and that the boundary line claimed by the respondent, D. W. Cunningham, is the true and correct boundary line of the lands owned by the parties to this suit and has been regarded and accepted as such for a period of more than twenty years."

We have carefully considered the record and evidence disclosed thereby, and find no reversible error in the decree deciding the controverted issue of fact and establishing the ancient line as so held and regarded as the true line between coterminous owners for twenty-five or thirty years. Spragins v. Fitcheard, 206 Ala. 694, 91 So. 793; Smith v. Bachus, 201 Ala. 534, 78 So. 888; ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Ala. Power Co. v. Keller, 2150979
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • May 5, 2017
    ...final adjudication and settlement of the true boundary line. Yauger v. Taylor, 218 Ala. 235, 118 So. 271 [(1928)]; Atkins v. Cunningham, 222 Ala. 553, 133 So. 586 [(1931)]; Smith v. Rhodes, 206 Ala. 460, 90 So. 349 [(1921)]."The case of Yauger v. Taylor, supra, states:"'The court of equity ......
  • Crew v. W.T. Smith Lumber Co., 3 Div. 823
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 19, 1959
    ...essential to final adjudication and settlement of the true boundary line. Yauger v. Taylor, 218 Ala. 235, 118 So. 271; Atkins v. Cunningham, 222 Ala. 553, 133 So. 586; Smith v. Rhodes, 206 Ala. 460, 90 So. The case of Yauger v. Taylor, supra, states: 'The court of equity is not wanting in p......
  • Edwards v. Farmer, 6 Div. 711
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • November 20, 1969
    ...including the issue of adverse possession and to render a final decree settling all issues between the parties. Atkins v. Cunningham, 222 Ala. 533, 133 So. 586.' Not only does a court of equity have power and authority to sift the evidence and make a determination as to the location of a tr......
  • Ballard v. W.T. Smith Lumber Co., 3 Div. 642
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 26, 1953
    ...to the same property and is a controversy between the same parties. Accordingly the bill is not multifarious. See Atkins v. Cunningham, 222 Ala. 553, 133 So. 586; Yauger v. Taylor, 218 Ala. 235, 118 So. The court acted correctly in overruling the demurrer to the bill of complaint. Affirmed.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT