Chappell v. Roberts
| Citation | 37 So. 241,140 Ala. 324 |
| Parties | CHAPPELL v. ROBERTS. |
| Decision Date | 14 June 1904 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; A. D. Sayre, Judge.
Suit by James Chappell against J. T. Roberts. From a decree dissolving a preliminary injunction, complainant appeals. Reversed.
Chas P. Jones, for appellant.
George H. Marks and Thos. H. Watts, for appellee.
The complainant, James Chappell, filed his bill against the defendant, J. T. Roberts, alleging that for a long time he had been the owner of a certain lot of land in Montgomery county; that shortly before filing the bill, the defendant wrongfully entered on and took possession of said lot and was digging and removing sand therefrom; that the lot was valuable only for sand and gravel, and the bill prayed an injunction restraining defendant from removing the sand from said lot. Preliminary injunction was issued. Defendant filed a sworn answer, denying that complainant was the owner of the lot, and alleging that he, the defendant, was the owner thereof, and thereupon, he moved the court to dissolve the injunction. The court on this motion, following the course proper to be pursued in such a case, as indicated in Hamilton v. Brent, 127 Ala. 78, 28 So. 698, and Ashurst v. McKenzie, 92 Ala. 490, 9 So. 262 continued the injunction for 20 days, during which time, it was ordered that complainant should bring his action at law for the recovery of the land in question, providing, also for such further time as might suffice to obtain judgment in such action,--the same being diligently prosecuted,--and in default of so doing, the injunction would be dissolved on defendant's motion.
The complainant within the time allowed instituted his action in ejectment in the city court of Montgomery. against the defendant, to recover the land described in the bill, in which case, on trial had, judgment was rendered on the merits in favor of defendant. Immediately thereafter, complainant brought a second action in ejectment against defendant, in the circuit court of Montgomery county, against defendant, to recover the same land. This action was tried on its merits resulting, also, in a verdict and judgment for the defendant. From this judgment the complainant took an appeal to this court, executing supersedeas and cost bonds, and that appeal is now pending undecided in this court.
The defendant, then, again moved the court to dissolve said injunction, which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woodstock Operating Corp. v. Quinn
... ... another." Fair v. Cummings, 72 So. 389; ... Yellow Pine Ex. Co. v. Sutherland, 141 Ala. 664, 37 ... So. 922; Chappell v. Roberts, 140 Ala. 324, 37 So ... 241; Mobile Co. v. Knapp, supra ... The ... sworn answer of respondent denies that complainant is ... ...
-
Thompson v. Johnson
...Co. v. Knapp, 75 So. 881; Driver v. New, 175 Ala. 655, 57 So. 437; Hamilton v. Brent Lumber Co., 127 Ala. 78, 28 So. 698; Chappell v. Roberts, 140 Ala. 324, 37 So. 241; Goodson v. Stewart, 149 Ala. 106, 42 So. Gilreath v. Carbon Hill Co., 157 Ala. 153, 47 So. 298; Chambers v. Ala. Iron Co.,......
-
Irwin v. Shoemaker
...title to realty resides. Driver v. New, 175 Ala. 655, 57 So. 437; Hamilton v. Brent Lbr. Co., 127 Ala. 78, 28 So. 698; Chappell v. Roberts, 140 Ala. 324, 37 So. 241. for complainant insist, however, that no such possession of the timber has been shown which would authorize an ejectment suit......
-
Irwin Fishing & Hunting Club v. Cobb
...Knapp, 200 Ala. 114, 75 So. 881; Driver v. New, 175 Ala. 655, 57 So. 437; Goodson v. Stewart, 149 Ala. 106, 42 So. 1019; Chappell v. Roberts, 140 Ala. 324, 37 So. 241; Corpus Juris 125. We decline to be led into a discussion of the real issue between the parties, except to say that it is ev......