Billups v. Gilbert, 5 Div. 580

CourtAlabama Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMcCLELLAN, J.
Citation195 Ala. 518,70 So. 145
PartiesBILLUPS v. GILBERT.
Docket Number5 Div. 580
Decision Date04 November 1915

70 So. 145

195 Ala. 518

BILLUPS
v.
GILBERT.

5 Div. 580

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 4, 1915


Rehearing Denied Dec. 2, 1915

Appeal from Chancery Court, Russell County; W.R. Chapman, Chancellor.

Bill by Mary E. Gilbert against James B. Billups. From a decree for complainant, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

A.A. Evans, of Montgomery, and Evans, Ferrell & Glenn, of Seale, for appellant.

Norman & Son, of Union Springs, and Glenn & De Graffenried, of Seale, for appellee.

McCLELLAN, J.

This bill was filed by Mary E. Gilbert against Billups and Nipper. The object of the bill was to establish the dividing line between adjoining quarter sections, viz., the northeast quarter of section 14, township 15, range 29, in Russell county, belonging to Billups, and the southeast quarter of that section, belonging to complainant. The bill invoked the jurisdiction expressed in Code, § 3052, as follows:

"The powers and jurisdiction of courts of chancery extend. *** 5.--To establish and define uncertain or disputed boundary lines."

By, and in consequence of, written agreements executed by the complainant and Billups and, also, by their respective solicitors, a consent decree was entered by the court wherein the true line between these quarter sections was decreed to--

"be the half section line of section 14, *** that the government line of the northeast quarter of said section *** is the true and correct dividing line between the lands of the complainant and the respondent in this cause, so far as the lands involved in this controversy are concerned."

A commission of three, to lay and mark the line thus agreed upon, was constituted by the decree, as the agreement binding the parties provided. No provision was made in the decree for a report by these commissioners of the data or evidence upon which they relied or acted in laying and marking the line thus established upon the agreement of the parties. The commission reported their action in locating the line and therein described the line marks and its location, which description the court carried into a formal decree. Under the agreements and under the consent decree, Billups cannot be heard to now complain that no basis for revision of the act of the commissioners in locating and marking the line was provided in the consent decree, nor that the data or evidence or method used or relied upon by the commissioners in locating the line on the soil was not required by the consent decree, or was not brought before the court in such manner as to admit of objections, and thereupon revision thereof by the court; no fraud on the part of the commissioners being asserted. If it was the desire of the parties to have a review or revision of the act of the commissioners in laying and marking the agreed line, that matter should...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Yauger v. Taylor, 2 Div. 916
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 24 Mayo 1928
    ...express ground that a boundary line had been agreed upon and perfected by adverse possession. In later cases, such as Billups v. Gilbert, 195 Ala. 518, 70 So. 145, Chappelear v. McWhorter, 204 Ala. 269, 85 So. 386, and Harley v. Chandler, 204 Ala. 207, 85 So. 546, it was recognized that a b......
  • Turner v. De Priest, 4 Div. 897
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 10 Febrero 1921
    ...the Code of 1907, the new provision to establish and define uncertain or disputed boundary lines was incorporated. In Billups v. Gilbert, 195 Ala. 518, 70 So. 145, the parties to a suit to "define boundary" had entered into a consent decree fixing the boundary and providing for commissioner......
  • Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Saffold Bros. Produce Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 3 Diciembre 1935
    ...N.W. 94, Ann.Cas. 1914B, 53. A court of equity has jurisdiction to render a personal decree for the payment of money, Billups v. Gilbert, 195 Ala. 518, 70 So. 145; and it has a broad discretion in forming decrees to adapt the relief to the circumstances of the particular case, Nichols v. Bo......
  • Mathews v. J.S. Carroll Mercantile Co., 4 Div. 586
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 4 Noviembre 1915
    ...of the storehouse property. An instance of this difference in averment is the absence of any unequivocal charge that W.F. Mathews [70 So. 145.] kept the conveyance from being filed for record, or recorded. The demurrer to the cross-bill did not separately assail the features of the pleading......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Yauger v. Taylor, 2 Div. 916
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 24 Mayo 1928
    ...express ground that a boundary line had been agreed upon and perfected by adverse possession. In later cases, such as Billups v. Gilbert, 195 Ala. 518, 70 So. 145, Chappelear v. McWhorter, 204 Ala. 269, 85 So. 386, and Harley v. Chandler, 204 Ala. 207, 85 So. 546, it was recognized that a b......
  • Turner v. De Priest, 4 Div. 897
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 10 Febrero 1921
    ...the Code of 1907, the new provision to establish and define uncertain or disputed boundary lines was incorporated. In Billups v. Gilbert, 195 Ala. 518, 70 So. 145, the parties to a suit to "define boundary" had entered into a consent decree fixing the boundary and providing for co......
  • Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Saffold Bros. Produce Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 3 Diciembre 1935
    ...N.W. 94, Ann.Cas. 1914B, 53. A court of equity has jurisdiction to render a personal decree for the payment of money, Billups v. Gilbert, 195 Ala. 518, 70 So. 145; and it has a broad discretion in forming decrees to adapt the relief to the circumstances of the particular case, Nichols v. Bo......
  • Mathews v. J.S. Carroll Mercantile Co., 4 Div. 586
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 4 Noviembre 1915
    ...of the storehouse property. An instance of this difference in averment is the absence of any unequivocal charge that W.F. Mathews [70 So. 145.] kept the conveyance from being filed for record, or recorded. The demurrer to the cross-bill did not separately assail the features of the pleading......
  • 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