Belcher v. Scruggs

• Decision Date: 17 April 1900
• Citation: 125 Ala. 336,27 So. 839
• Parties: BELCHER ET AL. v. SCRUGGS ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

27 So. 839

125 Ala. 336

BELCHER ET AL. v. SCRUGGS ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 17, 1900

Appeal from city court of Birmingham; Charles A. Senn, Judge.

Bill by John W. Belcher and others against L. H. Scruggs and others to remove a cloud from their title by canceling certain deeds. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Complainants allege that they constitute in part the descendants of one Thomas Graham, who died about 30 years ago, owning the land in question, and that they, as his heirs, are now the owners thereof, subject to the dower of Nancy Graham, his wife. They state that William Graham, a brother of said Thomas Graham and the heirs of John Graham, another brother, claim some interest in the land, but have none, without in any manner stating what that interest is. The bill also alleges that on the 3d day of May, 1881, William Graham, one of the brothers of Thomas Graham, and the heirs of John Graham, another brother, and some of the heirs of Thomas Graham (under whom they claim), executed a deed to Henry F. De Bardeleben for the land in question for the expressed consideration of about $900; that no part of this consideration was paid to them nor did they ever execute the deed; that the said De Bardeleben conveyed to Peters; and so on until the title reached the defendants. It is nowhere alleged that the complainants are in the possession of the land at the time they filed the bill, or who was in possession. Defendant Scruggs answered the bill, denying its allegations, and setting up the deed to De Bardeleben, and from him on down to himself, and alleges that De Bardeleben took possession of said land immediately upon the execution of said deed, and that he and those to whom the title which defendant holds was conveyed have ever since been in possession. He also pleads adverse possession for 10 years, and demurs to the bill on the ground that the complainants have a complete and adequate remedy at law. Roden, the other defendant, answered the bill denying the allegations of the bill, and pleads that the suit is barred by the laches of the complainants and by the statute of limitations of 10 years. Scruggs, in his amended answer, demurs to the bill on the grounds that the title of the complainants is too indefinitely stated, and that the suit is barred by lapse of time and the laches of the complainants. Upon the final submission of the cause upon the pleadings and proof, the court decreed that the complainants were not entitled to the relief prayed for, and ordered the bill dismissed. From this decree the complainants appeal, and assign the rendition thereof as error.

Geo. A Evans and J. G. Crews, for appellants.

White & Howze, for appellees.

TYSON J.

The bill in this cause was filed by a number of complainants as heirs at law of one Thomas Graham, deceased, who died more than 10 years ago. The purpose of ...