Camp v. Dunnavent, 8 Div. 802
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | BOULDIN, J. |
| Citation | 109 So. 362,215 Ala. 78 |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1926 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 802 |
| Parties | CAMP v. DUNNAVENT. |
109 So. 362
215 Ala. 78
CAMP
v.
DUNNAVENT.
8 Div. 802
Supreme Court of Alabama
June 30, 1926
Appeal from Circuit Court, Morgan County; J.E. Horton, Judge.
Bill in equity by J.O. Camp against C.A. Dunnavent. From a decree dissolving preliminary injunction, complainant appeals. Reversed, rendered, and remanded.
Eyster & Eyster, of Albany, for appellant.
Almon & Almon, of Albany, for appellee.
BOULDIN, J.
The bill is to establish and define the disputed boundary line between adjoining city lots. Incidental to this relief, the bill prayed for an injunction restraining respondent from destroying or removing a concrete retaining wall erected on the boundary line as claimed by complainant. The appeal is from a decree dissolving the temporary injunction. On motion to dissolve, the hearing was upon bill and answer, with supporting affidavits. The case made by the bill, and supporting affidavit, is briefly this:
Complainant owns a residence lot described by lot number as shown by the plat of an addition to the city of Decatur. Respondent owns the adjoining lot described by lot number on another plat. Complainant's lot is in Decatur and respondent's in Albany. The city of Decatur laid a sidewalk abutting complainant's lot prior to his purchase in 1914. Complainant paid the assessment; he took possession claiming title to the terminus of the walk, built his residence upon the lot, and has occupied same for more than 10 years prior to bringing suit. After complainant built, a residence was built on the adjoining lot by its then owner, who recognized the boundary as marked by the terminus of the walk. Respondent bought the lot in 1919. Thereafter a concrete wall was erected by complainant and respondent at their joint expense extending from the terminus of the walk back some 40 feet between the adjoining properties as held and occupied by them. Complainant alleges that the wall was erected upon the line agreed upon as the permanent boundary between the lots; that he filled in his lot to the wall and has maintained it to the wall as part of his lawn and flower garden; that recently respondent has disputed the line so located, claiming the concrete wall encroaches upon his lot; that he and his agents threatened to tear down and remove the concrete wall, had come on the ground for such purpose against complainant's protest; that the removal of the wall would mar the beauty and otherwise injure his premises, etc. Respondent admits the building of the concrete wall at joint expense, denies there was any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yauger v. Taylor, 2 Div. 916
...occasion to review the finding of the trial court on the issue of adverse possession. This Jenkins Case was followed by Camp v. Dunnavent, 215 Ala. 78, 109 So. 362, saying: "A court of equity has jurisdiction 'to and define uncertain or disputed boundary lines, whether the bill contains an ......
-
Bryan v. W. T. Smith Lumber Co., 4 Div. 160
...443, 108 So. 47; Baldwin v. Harrelson, 225 Ala. 386, 143 So. 558; Copeland v. Warren, 214 Ala. 150, 153, 107 So. 94; Camp v. Dunnavent, 215 Ala. 78, 109 So. 362; Yauger v. Taylor, 218 Ala. 235, 118 So. 271; Smith v Cook, 220 Ala. 338, 124 So. 898; Clarke v. Earnest, 224 Ala. 165, 139 So. 22......
-
Mink v. Whitfield, 8 Div. 993
...equity, and although adverse possession is claimed by defendant. Jenkins v. Raulston, 214 Ala. 443, 108 So. 47; Camp v. Dunnavent, 215 Ala. 78, 109 So. 362; Yauger v. Taylor, (Ala.Sup.) 118 So. 271. The law of adverse possession prescribed by section 6069 of the Code, by its terms, does not......
-
Wood v. Foster, 5 Div. 185.
...Ala. 235, 118 So. 271; Smith et al. v. Cook, 220 Ala. 338, 124 So. 898; Clarke v. Earnest, 224 Ala. 165, 139 So. 223; Camp v. Dunnavent, 215 Ala. 78, 109 So. 362. It is suggested by appellant that, where the evidence is by depositions and affidavits, not given orally in open court, no presu......
-
Yauger v. Taylor, 2 Div. 916
...occasion to review the finding of the trial court on the issue of adverse possession. This Jenkins Case was followed by Camp v. Dunnavent, 215 Ala. 78, 109 So. 362, saying: "A court of equity has jurisdiction 'to and define uncertain or disputed boundary lines, whether the bill contains an ......
-
Bryan v. W. T. Smith Lumber Co., 4 Div. 160
...443, 108 So. 47; Baldwin v. Harrelson, 225 Ala. 386, 143 So. 558; Copeland v. Warren, 214 Ala. 150, 153, 107 So. 94; Camp v. Dunnavent, 215 Ala. 78, 109 So. 362; Yauger v. Taylor, 218 Ala. 235, 118 So. 271; Smith v Cook, 220 Ala. 338, 124 So. 898; Clarke v. Earnest, 224 Ala. 165, 139 So. 22......
-
Mink v. Whitfield, 8 Div. 993
...equity, and although adverse possession is claimed by defendant. Jenkins v. Raulston, 214 Ala. 443, 108 So. 47; Camp v. Dunnavent, 215 Ala. 78, 109 So. 362; Yauger v. Taylor, (Ala.Sup.) 118 So. 271. The law of adverse possession prescribed by section 6069 of the Code, by its terms, does not......
-
Wood v. Foster, 5 Div. 185.
...Ala. 235, 118 So. 271; Smith et al. v. Cook, 220 Ala. 338, 124 So. 898; Clarke v. Earnest, 224 Ala. 165, 139 So. 223; Camp v. Dunnavent, 215 Ala. 78, 109 So. 362. It is suggested by appellant that, where the evidence is by depositions and affidavits, not given orally in open court, no presu......