Blalock v. Johnson, 5 Div. 518
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | SIMPSON; LIVINGSTON |
| Citation | 256 Ala. 349,54 So.2d 611 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 518 |
| Decision Date | 18 October 1951 |
| Parties | BLALOCK et al. v. JOHNSON. |
Page 611
v.
JOHNSON.
[256 Ala. 350]
Page 612
J. B. Atkinson, Clanton, for appellants.Omar L. Reynolds and Reynolds & Reynolds, all of Clanton, for appellee.
[256 Ala. 349]
Page 611
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:
'Beginning at a certain Black Gum tree about eight or ten inches in diameter or iron stob beside said tree, which stob and tree stand at the head of the slough on the back water of Lay Dam Lake, and from said point as a beginning point, run due West to the land line on the West side of the Northeast fourth of the Southwest fourth of Section 13, Township 23, Range 15, and thence North along the West line of said described forty acres of land to the Northwest corner of the Northeast fourth of the Southwest fourth of Section 13, Township 23, Range 15E, thence East 1069 feet along the North boundary of said forty acres of land to the property line of H. H. Pickens, and thence South along the H. H. Pickens property line about 107 feet to the shore line of the slough, and thence following the shore line of said slough, which is a part of the Lay Dam Lake to the point of beginning at head of slough; which contains nine acres, more or less, situated in the Northeast fourth of the Southwest fourth, Section 13, Township 23 Range 15. It is understood and agreed that the original road across the above described land to
Page 612
[256 Ala. 350] the property of H. H. Pickens must be kept open.'Amended paragraph 4 is as follows:
'Paragraph 4. The complainant further avers that there is a dispute as to the correct location of the true boundary line dividing the lands of the complainant from the lands of the respondents and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cloud v. Southmont Development Co., 6 Div. 796
...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.Ct.......
-
Whitehurst v. Kilpatrick, 4 Div. 915
...Als.Sup. [258 Ala. 558], 63 So.2d 704; Ballard v. W. T. Smith Lumber Co., Ala.Sup. [258 Ala. 436], 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 So. 27......
-
Blalock v. Johnson, 5 Div. 657
...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 On July 1, 1952, the complainant Johnson filed a substituted bill. On the same day he directed the court's attention to the fact th......
-
Comer v. Limbaugh, 6 Div. 157
...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 bill, there was......
-
Cloud v. Southmont Development Co., 6 Div. 796
...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.Ct.......
-
Whitehurst v. Kilpatrick, 4 Div. 915
...Als.Sup. [258 Ala. 558], 63 So.2d 704; Ballard v. W. T. Smith Lumber Co., Ala.Sup. [258 Ala. 436], 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 So. 27......
-
Blalock v. Johnson, 5 Div. 657
...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 On July 1, 1952, the complainant Johnson filed a substituted bill. On the same day he directed the court's attention to the fact th......
-
Comer v. Limbaugh, 6 Div. 157
...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 bill, there was......