Chism v. Hicks

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Citation423 So.2d 143
PartiesJohn W. CHISM and Lillian Frances Chism v. Leon HICKS, Lunis Hicks and Ida Hicks. 80-929.
Decision Date24 September 1982

Carol J. Millican, Birmingham, for appellants.

William P. Boggs, Clanton and Michael Murphy, Centreville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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.

"3. The Plaintiffs contended that they owned up to a fence constructed in 1949 by Palmer Hicks the deceased husband of Ida Hicks. The Plaintiffs claimed that the fence was recognized by the Plaintiffs and Defendants as being the boundary line which divided the property of the Plaintiffs and Defendants.

"4. The testimony that came before the court was that the fence was built in 1949 by Mr. Palmer Hicks (deceased) for the purpose of enclosing a pasture. It was not placed on the true boundary line due to the rugged nature of the terrain along the quarter section line. That the area in contention is wild land and that Plaintiffs failed to show sufficiency of possession to establish the prescription.

"5. The Court found no testimony as to any agreement between the parties that the fence would be the boundary line between the Plaintiffs and Defendants.

"6. The Court finds that the quarter section line as established by Bill Ogletree registered surveyor in November 1979, is the true boundary line between ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Drill Parts & Service Co., Inc. v. Joy Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • September 23, 1983
    ...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
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 2, 1990
    ...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
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • April 6, 1990
    ...... 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
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 3, 1986
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT