Bradford v. Sneed

• Decision Date: 16 November 1911
• Citation: 174 Ala. 113,56 So. 532
• Parties: BRADFORD ET AL. v. SNEED ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

56 So. 532

174 Ala. 113

BRADFORD ET AL. v. SNEED ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 16, 1911

Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; Charles A. Senn, Judge.

Action by Carrie Bradford and others against John Sneed and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

C. B Powell, for appellants.

William M. Walker, for appellees.

SIMPSON J.

This is an action of (statutory) ejectment, brought by the appellants against the appellees. There was a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, and a motion in arrest of judgment was sustained by the court, on account of the insufficiency of the description, in the verdict, of the property recovered. From this judgment the appeal is taken, and a motion is made for a writ of mandamus to the circuit judge, requiring him to set aside said order granting said motion in arrest of judgment.

The verdict is simply "for the lands sued for in the complaint," and the complaint described the lands sued for as "all that part of the lot of land now in possession of defendant which lies in S. 1/2 of S.E. 1/4 of N.W. 1/4 of S.W. 1/4 of section 26, township 17 south, range 3 west, situated in Jefferson county, Alabama."

This court has been very liberal in sustaining the validity of descriptions in deeds and in complaints, when the land is so described as to furnish data from which the description can be made certain. In the case of Heifner v. Porter &amp Simmons, 12 Ala. 470, the matter came upon demurrer to the declaration, and the court held that the mention of "80 acres at the west end" of a half section meant the W. 1/2 of the S.W. 1/4, and that the exception of "a lot donated for a schoolhouse," was merely an admission that there was a lot upon the premises previously dedicated for the purposes of schools. Other cases referring to the language of deeds and complaints recognize a description referring to some name generally known, as, for example, the "Sulphur Springs church ground" in a certain quarter of a quarter of a section (Rayburn v. Elrod et al., 43 Ala. 700), or "known as the Silas place" in a certain half section (Seymour v Williams, 139 Ala. 414, 36 So. 187). Also a deed is admissible as color of title, when parol testimony makes the land intended to be described certain. Rogers v. Keith et al., 148 Ala. 225, 42 So. 446.

But it is quite a different proposition when it is a verdict which is under consideration. The verdict must point out the land with such particularity that the sheriff can locate it without evidence extrinsic of the record, for he cannot take testimony and pass upon its effect. Several of our early cases draw attention to the fact that our courts do not follow the English practice, which gave great latitude in these matters, allowing the plaintiff to point out to the sheriff the land, and take possession at his peril, but demand that "the verdict and judgment must ascertain to a common intent...