Cochran v. Brannan
Decision Date | 02 March 1912 |
Docket Number | 1,362. |
Citation | 196 F. 219 |
Parties | COCHRAN et al. v. BRANNAN et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
Rich & Hamilton, of Mobile, Ala., for plaintiffs.
L. H. & E. W. Faith, of Mobile, Ala., for defendants.
The ground of the motion is, in substance, that the court in the course of the trial erred in a certain ruling which was adverse to plaintiffs' right to recover, and because of such ruling plaintiffs took a nonsuit with a bill of exceptions.
The plaintiffs claimed in the suit damages for an alleged trespass by defendants on certain lands described in the first and second counts of the complaint, alleging that they were the owners of said lands. In an amendment to the complaint, which is designated as count 3, plaintiffs allege that an undivided one-half interest in said lands belonged to them, and further alleged that one Mary Henry claimed the other undivided one-half interest, under the same title that plaintiffs owned title to their undivided one-half interest and so claimed the same on the 20th day of March, 1911, and subsequent thereto until the commencement of this suit; that before said 20th of March, 1911, one Amelia Frolichstein recovered in an ejectment suit against said Mary Henry in the circuit court of Mobile county the undivided one-half interest claimed by said Henry on a rival title to that under which plaintiffs and said Mary Henry claimed.
The defendants pleaded to the original complaint, and to the complaint as amended, pleas Nos. 1 and 2, which are as follows:
Plaintiffs introduced evidence tending to show title to the land described in the complaint in one S. G. Cochran, deceased that they were the legal heirs of said Cochran, and claimed said land by inheritance from him. In the first and second counts of the complaint plaintiffs claimed to own the whole title to the land described therein. By the amendment they claimed to own only an undivided one-half interest in the same. Plaintiffs then introduced a transcript of the record in the circuit court of Mobile county, Ala., of an action of ejectment by Amelia Frolichstein against Mary Henry for the land described in the complaint, in which said Frolichstein recovered judgment against said Henry, adjudging the former the owner of said land, and authorizing a writ of possession therefor, which it appeared had been duly executed, and said Frolichstein put in possession. The plaintiffs' counsel then announced that he had introduced all of his evidence so far as the same related to their title, that he had no more...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cahaba Forests, LLC v. Mary George E. Hay
...46 So.2d 218, 221 (1950) (action for injuries to the possession of property must be joined by all tenants in common); Cochran v. Brannan, 196 F. 219, 222 (S.D.Ala.1912) (action for trespass to realty held in common must be joined by all tenants). However, when a claim alleges injury to the ......
-
Clark v. Utah Construction Co., 5758
...property. (C. S., sec. 4666; Boggs v. Seawell, 35 Idaho 132, 205 P. 262; Holton v. Sand Point Lumber Co., 7 Idaho 573, 64 P. 889; Cochran v. Brannan, 196 F. 219.) Earl Garrity and William Healy, for Respondent. Illegality is a matter of defense and must be pleaded. (Miller v. Donovan, 11 Id......
-
Sligo Furnace Co. v. Dalton
...a trespass on realty is well settled. 15 Enc.Pl. & Pr. 544; 21 Enc.Pl. & Pr. 805, 1 Corp.Juris, 1120; 1 Rul.Case Law, 342; Cochran v. Brannan (D.C.) 196 F. 219, 222. And this rule prevails in the state of Missouri. v. Railway Co., 62 Mo.App. 431; Lumerate v. Railroad Co., 149 Mo.App. 47, 13......
-
Cahaba Forests, LLC v. Hay
...2d 218, 221 (Ala. 1950) (action for injuries to the possession of property must be joined by all tenants in common); Cochran v. Brannan, 196 F. 219, 222 (S.D. Ala. 1912) (action for trespass to realty held in common must be joined by all tenants). However, when a claim alleges injury to the......