Clarke v. Earnest

Decision Date21 January 1932
Docket Number1 Div. 687.
Citation139 So. 223,224 Ala. 165
PartiesCLARKE v. EARNEST.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; J. Blocker Thornton Judge.

Bill to establish a disputed boundary line by Cicely Clarke against Walter C. Earnest, Sr. From a decree dismissing the bill complainant appeals.

Reversed rendered in part, and remanded.

Wm. V McDermott, of Mobile, for appellant.

R. P. Roach, of Mobile, for appellee.

KNIGHT J.

This is an appeal prosecuted by complainant in the court below, appellant here, from a final decree of the circuit court of Mobile county, in equity, declining to establish and define, as uncertain and disputed, a boundary line between lands of appellant and appellee, and also dismissing the bill as to all relief sought.

The appellant and appellee are coterminous landowners, the former owning lot 5 and the latter lot 4, on the south side of, and abutting on, Iberville street, in the city of Mobile. Both lots form a part of what is known as Hamilton's resurvey.

The complainant filed her bill under subdivision 5 of section 6465 of the Code to establish and define by a decree of the court an uncertain or disputed boundary line between her lands and those of the respondent. Complainant's bill alleges that the line dividing her lands from those of the respondent was uncertain or disputed, that it was necessary to have this line established and defined, and she also prayed for injunctive relief against respondent's interfering with "complainant's possession of her said lot 5." The line alleged to be in dispute was the west line of complainant's property where it joined the east line of respondent's lot.

The bill presented a case for equitable relief. Code, § 6465; Yauger v. Taylor, 218 Ala. 235, 118 So. 271; Tabor v. Craft, 217 Ala. 276, 116 So. 132; Smith v. Cook, 220 Ala. 338, 124 So. 898; Camp v. Dunnavent, 215 Ala. 78, 109 So. 362; Treadaway v. Hamilton, 221 Ala. 479, 129 So. 55.

The respondent answered, and denied that there was any uncertainty as to the location of the boundary line as claimed by complainant, setting up that the line was well marked and defined. In his answer, the respondent sets up title by adverse possession to any, or such, part of lot 5 owned by complainant that a survey might show him to be in possession of.

The testimony introduced in the cause was all taken by deposition, and covers a hundred pages of transcript. To state any part of it in detail would unduly extend this opinion, and would serve no useful purpose. It has all been carefully read and considered. There is a sharp conflict in the evidence as to the true western boundary of complainant's lot, which is the east boundary of respondent's property. To our mind, after due consideration of all the evidence, the conclusion is inescapable that there is manifest uncertainty as to the true boundary line between the lands of these two coterminous landowners, and subdivision 5 of section 6465 of the Code was enacted to meet just such a case as is presented by this record. The testimony of the complainant and of the two surveyors, examined as witnesses by her, tends to show that the true line is in one place, while the respondent's testimony and that of the surveyors examined by him tends to show a different location of the true line.

By dismissing complainant's bill, the court neither adopted the complainant's contention nor the contention of the respondent, and left the boundary line wholly undetermined. Under the allegations of the bill and the evidence, the boundary line should have been reduced to certainty, and fixed by a decree of the court. Such was the purpose of the statute, and such were the necessities of the case under the evidence.

Confessedly, on the testimony of the respondent, he is in possession of a strip of complainant's land on the west side, about five feet in width, at the north end of her lot, the exact amount is undetermined, and he may be also in possession of a strip of lot 5, four, five, or six inches in width, on the same west side at the south end. This status of the evidence presents a proper case for the exercise of chancery jurisdiction "to establish and define an uncertain or disputed boundary line," whether the bill contains an independent equity or not. Yauger v. Taylor, supra; Smith v. Cook, supra; Code, § 6465, subd. 5.

We do not think that the complainant has lost title to any part of her lot by any adverse holding by the respondent. The rules of law on the subject of adverse possession between coterminous landowners have often been stated by this court. In the case of Smith v. Cook, 220 Ala. 338, 124 So 898, 900, Mr. Justice Foster, in delivering the opinion of the court, states these principles as follows: "If two coterminous proprietors agree on a boundary line, and each occupies to its location, the possession is presumed adverse, and after ten years has the effect of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Watson v. Price
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 3, 1978
    ...112 So. 905.' Smith v. Cook, 220 Ala. 338, 341, 124 So. 898, 900. See Treadaway v. Hamilton, 221 Ala. 479, 129 So. 55; Clarke v. Earnest, 224 Ala. 165, 139 So. 223; Guy v. Lancaster, 250 Ala. 226, 34 So.2d "As heretofore shown, the boundary was fixed by the trial court as contended for by t......
  • Branyon v. Kirk, 8 Div. 917.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • October 5, 1939
    ... ... Whitfield, 218 Ala. 334, 118 So. 559; ... Treadaway v. Hamilton, 221 Ala. 479, 129 So. 55; ... Smith v. Cook, 220 Ala. 338, 124 So. 898; Clarke ... v. Earnest, 224 Ala. 165, 139 So. 223; Baldwin v ... Harrelson, 225 Ala. 386, 143 So. 558; Wood v ... Foster, 229 Ala. 430, 157 So. 863; ... ...
  • McNeil v. Hadden
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • November 18, 1954
    ...112 So. 905.' Smith v. Cook, 220 Ala. 338, 341, 124 So. 898, 900. See Treadaway v. Hamilton, 221 Ala. 479, 129 So. 55; Clarke v. Earnest, 224 Ala. 165, 139 So. 223; Guy v. Lancaster, 250 Ala. 226, 34 So.2d As heretofore shown, the boundary was fixed by the trial court as contended for by th......
  • Forrester v. McFry
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • October 11, 1934
    ... ... Whitfield, 218 Ala. 334, 118 So. 559; ... Treadaway v. Hamilton, 221 Ala. 479, 129 So. 55; ... Smith v. Cook, 220 Ala. 338, 124 So. 898; Clarke ... v. Earnest, 224 Ala. 165, 139 So. 223; Baldwin v ... Harrelson, 225 Ala. 386, 143 So. 558. The same is true ... at law on such an issue ... ...
  • 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