Baldwin v. Harrelson

• Decision Date: 06 October 1932
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 585.
• Parties: BALDWIN v. HARRELSON ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

143 So. 558

225 Ala. 386

BALDWIN v. HARRELSON ET AL.

4 Div. 585.

Supreme Court of Alabama

October 6, 1932

Appeal from Circuit Court, Covington County; Emmet S. Thigpen Judge.

Suit by B. A. Baldwin against Charles Harrelson and others. From a decree of dismissal, complainant appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Simmons & Simmons, of Opp, for appellant.

E. O Baldwin, of Andalusia, for appellees.

FOSTER J.

The bill in this case, to settle and determine a disputed boundary line, does not contain more than the statutory requirements. Section 6439 et seq., and § 6465, subd. 5 Code. It does not go so far as to describe the true line, nor allege that it is unknown to complainant. Ordinarily this should be done. Smith v. Bachus, 195 Ala. 8, 70 So 261. But its absence does not deprive the court of jurisdiction, and is not fatal to relief when there is no demurrer on that ground. Smith v. Cook, 220 Ala. 338, 124 So. 898.

When such a bill seeks only the statutory relief, the complainant, upon proving the statutory allegations, is entitled to have the line described and located with reasonable certainty by the decree of the court (Clarke v. Earnest, 224 Ala. 165, 139 So. 223), which shall, within itself or by reference to the pleading or other records in the cause, completely and accurately describe the true line. Hopkins v. Duggar, 204 Ala. 626, 87 So. 103; Alverson v. Floyd, 219 Ala. 68, 121 So. 55; Jenkins v. Raulston, 214 Ala. 443, 108 So. 47; Smith v. Cook, supra.

It is also now the established rule in such cases that, because the dispute is affected or controlled by adverse possession and in fact involves the title to a strip of land in dispute between their undisputed holdings, it is none the less a boundary controversy and within the statutory powers of the chancery court. Yauger v. Taylor, 218 Ala. 235, 118 So. 271; Treadaway v. Hamilton, 221 Ala. 479, 129 So. 55; Smith v. Cook, supra.

In the Smith v. Cook Case, supra, we sustained a decree dismissing the bill, but pointed out that complainant sought by the prayer to establish by adverse possession his right to a certain defined wire fence, and have it fixed as the boundary line, and did not insist that the court otherwise determine the true line. The issue made in the pleading was whether the wire fence was the true line, fixed by survey, agreement, or adverse possession. But in this case the only relief sought is that the true line be located and defined. Although the court may find, and may be correct in so doing, that the wire fence as now located is the true dividing line, a dismissal of the suit does not respond to the issue. The proof sufficiently shows that the line is so disputed and uncertain as to require the court to fix, determine, and describe it. Clarke...