Crump v. Knight

Citation250 Ala. 393,34 So.2d 593
Decision Date25 March 1948
Docket Number6 Div. 682.
PartiesCRUMP v. KNIGHT.
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

R G. Redden, of Vernon, and Fite and Fite, of Hamilton, for appellant.

Young & Young, of Vernon, for appellee.

BROWN Justice.

The bill in this case was filed by the appellant on the 2nd of January, 1947, under § 1109, Title 7, Code of 1940, to quiet title to 40 acres of land described according to the government survey, located in Lamar County. The bill follows the prescription of the statute and alleges that the complainant 'is in peaceable possession of the hereinafter described lands claiming to own the same in his own right; * * *.' That defendant claims 'or is reputed to claim some right, title or interest in or incumbrance upon such lands, and complainant hereby calls upon said defendant to set forth and specify his title claim, interest, or incumbrance, and how and by what instrument the same is derived and created.' That 'there is no suit pending to enforce or test the validity of the title to said lands.'

The defendant answered denying that 'complainant is in peaceable possession of the land described therein, and avers the truth to be that the defendant is in possession of said land and has been in possession of said lands on his own right for more than ten years, and through those whom he claims for more than forty years; defendant avers that his right and title to said lands is based on a deed obtained by him from Susie Mixon and her husband, J. R. Mixon, dated Dec 31, 1936, which is recorded in Deed Book 72 at page 98 of the records of deeds in the office of the Judge of Probate of Lamar County, Alabama; that said Susie Mixon obtained her title through a deed executed to her by J. R. Mixon, dated September 14, 1936, which deed is recorded in deed book 60 at page 346 of the record of deeds in the office of the Judge of Probate of Lamar County, Alabama; that said J. R. Mixon obtained his title to said lands by a deed from S. G Johnson, as Provate Judge of Lamar County, Alabama, dated June 13, 1929, which is recorded in Deed Book 55 at page 120 of the record of deeds in the office of the Judge of Probate of Lamar County, Alabama; and that said deed recites that the land in controversy was sold under a decree of the Probate Court of Lamar County, Alabama, dated May 9th, 1927, for taxes due the State and County for the year 1926 by Willie Austin, to whom the land was assessed; that said Willie Austin was the owner of said land as of October 1st, 1925, when the law required property to be assessed; that said Willie Austin obtained his title by a warranty deed from Sandy Truelove and his wife, Susan Truelove, dated January 9, 1917, which said deed is recorded in Deed Book 39 at page 193 of the record of deeds in the office of the Judge of Probate of Lamar County, Alabama; that said Sandy Truelove obtained his title from the United States of America by Patent dated Feb. 19, 1906, as is shown by the Plat Book of Lamar County, Alabama, page 172, in the office of the Judge of Probate of Lamar County, Alabama.'

The answer admitted that there was no suit pending and respondent after filing the above answer prayed that his said answer be taken as a cross bill and that the decree of the court affirm the respondent's legal and equitable ownership of the land in controversy.

On the issues thus formed the court heard the case on testimony and evidence adduced in open court, the testimony of the witnesses being ore tenus.

The complainant adduced evidence going to show that his claim of title was based on a deed executed to him by J. A. Northington on the 21st of November, 1946, with covenants of warranty conveying the tract of land in controversy to him. He also adduced in evidence a deed executed by W. L. Austin and Willie Austin to Northington on the 13th of December, 1926, recorded on the 21st of November, 1946. The evidence shows that this deed was misplaced or lost and was not discovered until about the time or a short time before it was recorded and in the interim between its execution and recordation while Northington on a few occasions claimed that he owned the land, he neglected to assess it for taxes, until the year 1946, shortly before the bill was filed.

These lands were assessed for taxes against Willie Austin for the tax year 1926 and in default of payment of said taxes the land was sold on the 10th of June, 1927, as the property of Willie Austin, under whom both part...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Chestang v. Tensaw Land & Timber Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • September 8, 1960
    ...ownership of the lands in respondent? We think not. See McGowin v. Felts, 263 Ala. 504, 506, 83 So.2d 228, supra; Crump v. Knight, 250 Ala. 393, 396, 34 So.2d 593; Price v. Robinson, 242 Ala. 626, 628, 7 So.2d 568; Grayson v. Muckleroy, 220 Ala. 182, 186, 124 So. 217; Buchmann Abstract & In......
  • Myers v. Moorer
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 23, 1961
    ...equity independent of the equity asserted in the original bill. See: McGowin v. Felts, 263 Ala. 504, 506, 83 So.2d 228; Crump v. Knight, 250 Ala. 393, 396, 34 So.2d 593; Price v. Robinson, 242 Ala. 626, 628, 7 So.2d 568; Grayson v. Muckleroy, 220 Ala. 182, 186, 124 So9 217; Buchmann Abstrac......
  • Ex parte Green, No. 1071195 (Ala. 4/9/2010)
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 9, 2010
    ...other cases in which the "jurisdiction destroyed" statement had been repeated, the Court observed: "In the case of Crump v. Knight, 250 Ala. 393, 34 So. 2d 593, 596 [(1948)], this court followed the Buchmann case, and even though the trial court had held that complainant had neither possess......
  • Ex Parte Johnnie Mae Alexander Green Et Al.(in Re Frank Stokes
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 9, 2010
    ...other cases in which the “jurisdiction destroyed” statement had been repeated, the Court observed: “In the case of Crump v. Knight, 250 Ala. 393, 34 So.2d 593, 596 [ (1948) ], this court followed the Buchmann case, and even though the trial court had held that complainant had neither posses......
  • 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