Chism v. Hicks
Decision Date | 24 September 1982 |
Citation | 423 So.2d 143 |
Parties | John W. CHISM and Lillian Frances Chism v. Leon HICKS, Lunis Hicks and Ida Hicks. 80-929. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Carol J. Millican, Birmingham, for appellants.
William P. Boggs, Clanton and Michael Murphy, Centreville, for appellees.
This case involves a boundary line dispute between two coterminous landowners. We affirm.
In 1949, Mr. Palmer Hicks built a fence between his land and the land owned by John and Frances Chism. The evidence is unclear as to whether the fence was intended by the parties be a "boundary line" fence. The boundary line between the two properties, as described in their respective deeds, is the "quarter-section" line.
Mr. Chism testified that since he had purchased the property in 1948, he had claimed all the land up to the fence built in 1949, and had therefore, by prescription, gained ownership of the property.
The majority of the evidence was in conflict. The plaintiffs (the Chisms) claimed the fence was built to mark the boundary between the two properties, while the defendants claim the fence was built merely to enclose a pasture.
After hearing the case without a jury, the trial judge made, in part, the following findings of fact:
"1. The Plaintiffs, John W. Chism and Lillian Frances Chism, are the record owners of the following described real estate situated in Bibb County, Alabama.
SW 1/4 of SW 1/4, Section 31, Township 22 North Range 11-East, and E 1/2 of SE 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Section 36, Township 22, Range 10 E, Bibb County, Alabama.
"2. The Defendants, Leon Hicks, Lunis Hicks, and Ida Hicks, are the record owners of the following described real estate situated in Bibb County, Alabama.
NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4, Section 31, Township 22, Range 11, East; and NE 1/4 of SE 1/4; Section 36, Township 22; Range 10 East, Bibb County, Alabama.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Drill Parts & Service Co., Inc. v. Joy Mfg. Co.
...findings of fact are presumed to be correct and will not be set aside except for plain and palpable abuse of discretion. Chism v. Hicks, 423 So.2d 143 (Ala.1982), Mac Pon Co. v. Vinsant Painting and Decorating Co., 423 So.2d 216 Montgomery claims that the trial court in evaluating the evide......
-
Ex parte Brown
...This Court must affirm the trial judge's decision if, under any reasonable aspect, it is supported by any credible evidence. Chism v. Hicks, 423 So.2d 143 (Ala.1982). Furthermore, where a trial court does not make specific findings of fact concerning an issue, this Court will assume that th......
-
Humphries v. Whiteley
...... will affirm the trial judge's decision if, under any reasonable aspect, it is supported by any credible evidence." Chism v. Hicks, 423 So.2d 143, 144 (Ala.1982) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). Finally, "[t]his Court cannot overturn [the] finding[s] of fact by the lower court unless......
-
Seidler v. Phillips
...and this Court will not reverse a judgment based on those findings unless it is plainly erroneous or manifestly unjust. Chism v. Hicks, 423 So.2d 143 (Ala.1982). This presumption of correctness in ore tenus cases is especially strong in adverse possession cases because the evidence in adver......