Blalock v. Johnson
Decision Date | 18 October 1951 |
Docket Number | 5 Div. 518 |
Citation | 256 Ala. 349,54 So.2d 611 |
Parties | BLALOCK et al. v. JOHNSON. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
J. B. Atkinson, Clanton, for appellants.
Omar L. Reynolds and Reynolds & Reynolds, all of Clanton, for appellee. Paragraph 2 of the bill is as follows:
'2. That complainant is the owner of the following described real estate situated in Chilton County, Alabama, to-wit:
'Begin at a point 1069 feet East of the Northwest corner of NE1/4 of SW1/4, Section 13, Township 23, Range 15 East, thence run East 251 feet to the Northeast corner of said quarter section, thence South 3 degrees 30 minutes East for 231 feet to the shore line of Lay Dam Lake, thence South 20 degrees 30 minutes West along the shore line of Lay Dam Lake 107 feet, thence North 80 degrees 30' West along the shore line of Lay Dam Lake 411 feet, thence North 267 feet to the point of beginning.
'That the respondents are the owners of the following described property situated in Chilton County, Alabama:
Amended paragraph 4 is as follows:
The following is a map of the lands involved:
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
Bill to settle a disputed boundary line between coterminous landowners, pursuant to Chapter 2, Article 1, Title 47, Code 1940. The defendants appeal from a decree overruling demurrer to the bill as amended.
The requisites of such a bill are well understood. The bill must show a dispute between the adjoining proprietors as to the correct line and ordinarily the true line should be described or it should be alleged that the true line is unknown. Mobile County v. Taylor, 234 Ala. 167, 174 So. 301; Baldwin v. Harrelson, 225 Ala. 386, 143 So. 558; Smith v. Cook, 220 Ala. 338, 124 So. 898.
The bill as amended satisfies these requisites. It shows that the complainant is the owner of certain described lands in Chilton County, describing the same by metes and bounds, courses and distances, and that the defendants own lands adjoining, describing these lands in the same manner. It is then...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cloud v. Southmont Development Co.
...or boundary, this call prevails over any inconsistent calls, citing Van Valkenburg v. Geron, 249 Ala. 467, 31 So.2d 767; Blalock v. Johnson, 256 Ala. 349, 54 So.2d 611; Spires v. Nix, 256 Ala. 642, 57 So.2d 89; Williams v. Bryan, 197 Ala. 675, 73 So. 372; Ayers v. Watson, 113 U.S. 594, 5 S.......
-
Whitehurst v. Kilpatrick, 4 Div. 915
...the true line. Steele v. McCurdy, Als.Sup. , 63 So.2d 704; Ballard v. W. T. Smith Lumber Co., Ala.Sup. , 63 So.2d 376; Blalock v. Johnson, 256 Ala. 349, 54 So.2d 611; Winburne v. Russell, 255 Ala. 158, 50 So.2d 721; Ford v. Beam, 241 Ala. 340, 2 So.2d 411; Wise v. Massee, 239 Ala. 559, 196 ......
-
Blalock v. Johnson
...their demurrer to the bill as then amended, the respondents appealed to this court. We affirmed on October 18, 1951. Blalock v. Johnson, 256 Ala. 349, 54 So.2d 611. On July 1, 1952, the complainant Johnson filed a substituted bill. On the same day he directed the court's attention to the fa......
-
Comer v. Limbaugh
...location of the line between the lands, sufficiently describes the true boundary line. Wise v. Massee, supra. See also Blalock v. Johnson, Ala.Sup., 54 So.2d 611, and cases there There is no merit in appellant's contention that after the court below sustained the demurrer to the amended bil......