Barefoot v. Wall

• Decision Date: 19 December 1895
• Citation: 18 So. 823,108 Ala. 327
• Parties: BAREFOOT v. WALL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

18 So. 823

108 Ala. 327

BAREFOOT v. WALL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 19, 1895

Appeal from circuit court, Pike county; John R. Tyson, Judge.

Action by J. B. Barefoot against J. H. Wall. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

This was an action of unlawful detainer, instituted on February 15, 1894, by the appellant, J. B. Barefoot, against the appellee, J. H. Wall, and sought to recover the possession of certain described land. Issue was joined upon the pleas of not guilty and the statute of limitations of three years. The testimony for the plaintiff tended to show that in the year 1881 or 1882 he claimed the land involved in this controversy, and that he allowed the defendant to enter into the possession of it under an agreement that, whenever he saw fit to ask for the rent of the land, the defendant should pay it; that in the year 1883 or 1884, while the defendant was thus using and in possession of said land, the plaintiff bought the 80 acres in which the land in dispute lies at a tax sale, and, immediately after such purchase, told the defendant he could stay on the land as he had been doing and, when he wanted any rent, he would call on him for it and that the defendant has been in possession of the land ever since; that, several times during his holding of the land under this agreement, the defendant has promised to pay the plaintiff rent for the use of said land; and that within three years from the institution of the present suit, when the plaintiff called on the defendant for rent of said land the defendant said that he would pay said rent; but that he had never done so. The plaintiff offered to introduce in evidence his deed under the tax sale conveying the 80 acres in which the land in dispute lies, which deed was properly executed, acknowledged, and recorded. The defendant objected to said deed being introduced in evidence, but specified no grounds of objection. The court sustained the objection, and the plaintiff duly excepted. The plaintiff, as a witness in his own behalf, testified "that he had frequently, since the purchase at tax sale, cut timber off of other portions of said eighty acres of land, and had paid the taxes on said eighty acres ever since the purchase at tax sale, which was about ten years ago." The defendant objected to this testimony, and moved to exclude it from the jury, but stated no grounds for the motion. The court sustained the objection and motion, excluded the testimony, and to this ruling the plaintiff duly excepted. The testimony for the defendant tended to show that he went into possession of the lands involved in this controversy under an agreement with one Barnes; that he had never agreed to pay the plaintiff rent for said land; but that, after he went into possession under said Barnes, he had paid some part of the rent due Barnes before the institution of the present suit. The defendant testified that the plaintiff had never exercised acts of ownership over this property, and had never cut wood from the land except against the defendant's objection. Upon the introduction of all the evidence, the court, at the request of the defendant, gave...