Crosby v. Baldwin County
Decision Date | 11 May 1933 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 750. |
Citation | 227 Ala. 122,148 So. 814 |
Parties | CROSBY v. BALDWIN COUNTY. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 22, 1933.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Baldwin County; F. W. Hare, Judge.
Bill for injunction by L. G. Crosby against Baldwin County. From a decree dissolving a temporary injunction, complainant appeals.
Affirmed.
Stevens McCorvey, McLeod, Goode & Turner, of Mobile, and Hybart Heard & Chason, of Bay Minette, for appellant.
Beebe & Hall, of Bay Minette, for appellee.
This suit was for injunction against the county to prevent the opening of a public road through the pasture of the complainant.
The temporary injunction was dissolved after the sworn answer praying dissolution was filed and respective affidavits were offered in evidence, and hearing thereon.
The court rendered an opinion supporting the decree.
The questions raised are: (1) That appellee's affidavits offered in support of the sworn answer were not admissible (2) that the deed from the common grantors-Alto Boyington and wife-to the county recited no consideration, and there was no delivery or acceptance to operate as a dedication.
The statute provides that a defendant may, in vacation, upon ten days' notice to the complainant, move to dissolve an injunction for want of equity (section 8302, Code); that upon the hearing of a motion to dissolve an injunction, the court may consider the sworn answer, whether the answer contains denials of the allegations of the bill or independent defensive matter, "and also 'such affidavits as any party may introduce."' Henry v. Watson, 109 Ala. 335, 19 So. 413; Rice v. Davidson, 206 Ala. 226, 89 So. 600; Profile Cotton Mills v. Calhoun Water Co., 189 Ala. 181, 66 So. 50; Holcomb v. Forsyth, 216 Ala. 486, 489, 113 So. 516.
The clause to be considered is:
This deed was duly acknowledged and recorded.
In Houston v. Blackman, 66 Ala. 559, 562, 41 Am. Rep. 756, Mr. Chief Justice Brickell observes that: London v. G. L. Anderson Brass Works, 197 Ala. 17, 19, 72 So. 359; Holcomb v. Forsyth, supra; 18 C.J. 177.
Dedication and acceptance within a reasonable time of a public highway must be clearly manifested by the act or acts of the owner and public. Harper v. State, 109 Ala. 66, 69, 19 So. 901. It is further declared by this court that where a deed is in the possession of the grantee the presumption (or prima facie) is that of delivery (Napier v. Elliott, 177 Ala. 113, 58 So. 435; Skipper v. Holloway, 191 Ala. 190, 67 So. 991); and the test of delivery of a conveyance is whether the grantor intended to reserve to himself the locus p nitentiæ. If he did, there is no delivery and no present intention to divest himself of the title to the property. Griswold v. Griswold, 148 Ala. 239, 241, 42 So. 554, 121 Am. St. Rep. 64; Gulf Red Cedar Co. v. Crenshaw, 169 Ala. 606, 613, 53 So. 812; Powell v. Powell, 217 Ala. 287, 116 So. 139; Dawson v. J. A. Lindsey & Co., 223 Ala. 169, 171, 134 So. 662. That is, though delivery may be by the grantor handing the conveyance to the grantee, this is not necessary to a valid delivery, and, when "the grantor's acts or words, or both, clearly manifest an intended delivery of the deed, the courts will give effect to the intent and declare the deed delivered." Perkins v. Perkins, 206 Ala. 571, 91 So. 256, 257.
It is further declared that to defeat a deed on the grounds of fraud in its procurement, the fraud must be established by clear and convincing proof. Stewart v. Stewart, 171 Ala. 485, 54 So. 604; Dean, Adm'r, v. Oliver, 131 Ala. 634, 30 So. 865.
The record fails to disclose that the grantors were unable or prevented from reading and understanding the effect...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Duncan v. Johnson
...of the parties relating thereto.' Watson v. Watson, 283 Ala. 214, 219, 215 So.2d 290, 295 (1968) In Crosby v. Baldwin County, 227 Ala. 122, 124, 148 So. 814, 815 (1933), expressly relied upon for the quoted declaration in Watson, the court points to the criterion, i.e., whether there is the......
-
City of Birmingham v. Hood-McPherson Realty Co.
... ... Appeal ... from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J.Q. Smith, Judge ... Bill ... for injunction by the Hood-McPherson Realty Company ... 208, 48 So. 391; Stollenwerck et al. v. Greil et ... al., 205 Ala. 217, 87 So. 338; Crosby v. Baldwin ... County, 227 Ala. 122, 148 So. 814; ... [172 So. 119] section 2071 of the Code, ... ...
-
Alford v. Henderson
...64; Powell v. Powell, 217 Ala. 287, 116 So. 139; Dawson et al. v. J. A. Lindsey & Co., 223 Ala. 169, 134 So. 662; Crosby v. Baldwin County, 227 Ala. 122, 148 So. 814; Rickert v. Touart, 174 Ala. 107, 56 So. Farr et al. v. Chambless, 175 Ala. 659, 57 So. 458; Elsberry v. Boykin, 65 Ala. 336;......
-
City of Eufaula, Alabama v. Pappas
...the transfer to Zafero P. Paterson was the sum of $1, this under the law of Alabama suffices to support the transfer. Crosby v. Baldwin County, 227 Ala. 122, 148 So. 814; Young v. Bloak, 261 Ala. 542, 74 So.2d 910; and Stewart v. Stewart, 171 Ala. 485, 54 So. 604. The movant places much emp......