Daniel v. Williams

Decision Date25 April 1912
Citation58 So. 419,177 Ala. 140
PartiesDANIEL ET AL. v. WILLIAMS ET AL.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Washington County; Samuel B. Browne Judge.

Action by Jerry N. Daniel and others against T. H. Williams and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Granade & Granade, of Chatom, for appellants.

Ervin &amp McAleer, of Mobile, for appellees.

SOMERVILLE J.

Plaintiff sued defendants in a justice's court for the possession of certain lands, the complaint containing a count in forcible entry and detainer and also in unlawful detainer. Under section 4283 of the Code, defendants transferred the cause to the circuit court, having filed the required affidavit that they "entered on the land sued for peaceably, and under claim of title thereto, and not under claim of any agreement, contract, or understanding with the plaintiff, or those under whom he claims, and that petitioner bona fide desires to contest with plaintiff the title to said land." On the whole evidence the court gave the general affirmative charge for defendants, and there was verdict and judgment accordingly.

The burden was on plaintiff to show prior possession in himself and either a forcible entry or an unlawful detainer by defendants, or else to show a title in himself superior to that of defendants. Code, § 4285; Fowler v Pritchard, 148 Ala. 261, 41 So. 667.

The material facts, as shown by the bill of exceptions, are substantially as follows:

In 1857 plaintiff bought of one Williams Smith "the E. 1/2 of S.W. 1/4 of Sec. 1, Tp. 8 N., R. 4 west, with the exception of one five acre lot lying in the S.W. corner of said tract being sold to J. B. Worsham by Williams Smith and one 4 acre lot lying in the same corner of said tract of land sold by Philip Cato to Jeremiah Worsham in his lifetime." On December 16, 1897, W. N. and P. L. Worsham sold to Julia A. Williams (one of the defendants), by warranty deed, several tracts of land, including "one lot in the S.W. corner of the S.E. 1/4 of the S.W. 1/4 of Sec. 1, Tp. 8, R. 4 west, * * * containing 9 acres." On December 15, 1897, J. N. Daniel (the plaintiff) and his wife conveyed to W. N. and P. L. Worsham, by warranty deed, for the consideration of one dollar, "9 acres in S.W. corner of S.E. 1/4 of S.W. 1/4 of section 1, Tp. 8 north, R. 4 west, the same nine acres described in my deed." This deed, it seems, was given at the request of the Worshams, through their agent, and "was intended to perfect the Worsham title so that the sale could be made to Williams." One Pettus, a witness for plaintiff, testified that after the deed was made to Mrs. Williams he put Mr. Williams (presumably her husband) in possession of a nine-acre lot in the southwest corner of the tract, consisting of a five-acre lot and a four-acre lot immediately north of it; the whole being a rectangle, but not a square, and showed him the corners. It does not appear, however, that Julia A. Williams knew anything about this, nor that Mr. Williams was authorized to bind her in any way with respect thereto. In 1905 T. H. Williams (one of the defendants, and a son of Julia A. Williams) took charge of the land for his mother, and in 1907 proceeded to have a survey made of the lot as described in his mother's deed; that is, in the form of a square in the southwest corner. This survey reduced the length of the lot, as described by the witness Pettus and others, on the north, and extended it on the east; and it is a strip of approximately two acres on the east, thus included in this extension, that under the amended pleadings was the sole subject of controversy. An ancient rail fence, following a curved line, and concaving considerably to the east of its two termini, ran so that the eastern line of defendants' "square" survey intersected it at two points. This fence was not a line fence, but had served plaintiff as an inclosure on that side, and he had always claimed and used the land to the east of it, and at times a small area on the western side; and west of the fence was claimed and occupied by the Worshams. The fence cut off on its eastern side the major part of the strip now in dispute. At the time of the defendants' alleged forcible entry through this fence, it was down in several places, and the field on its eastern side was open to free access from the west via the lands conceded to have been in defendants' possession.

A conveyance of a definite quantity of land in or off of a specified corner of a designated tract is, under a well-settled rule of construction, the grant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Phillips v. Phillips
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • February 12, 1914
    ...burden was on plaintiffs to show either a superior title in themselves, or a forcible entry or unlawful detention by defendants. Daniel v. Williams, 58 So. 419. is no evidence whatever that either of the defendants entered in recognition of plaintiffs' title and in subordination thereto. Th......
  • Gerald v. Hayes
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • December 16, 1920
    ... ... 3364; Chandler v. Pope, 87 So. 539; Yancey v. S ... & W.R. Co., 101 Ala. 234; 13 So. 311, Daniels v ... Williams, 177 Ala. 140, 58 So. 419; Chapman v ... Chapman, 194 Ala. 518, 70 So. 121); that if a grantor ... remains in possession, he is presumptively but ... ...
  • Walker v. Coley
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 21, 1956
    ...himself will be sufficient to change the character of his possession and render it adverse to the grantee. 2 C. J. 143; Daniels v. Williams, 177 Ala. 140, 58 So. 419; Chancellor v. Teel, 141 Ala. 634, 37 So. 665; Ivey v. Beddingfield, 107 Ala. 616, 18 So. 139.' Alabama Power Co. v. Rodgers,......
  • Smith v. Smith
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • December 13, 2013
    ...when it fashioned an odd-shaped parcel so that boundaries of the one acre would include the barn. They cite Daniels v. Williams, 177 Ala. 140, 144, 58 So. 419, 421 (1912), for the principle that “[a] conveyance of a definite quantity of land in or off of a specified corner of a designated t......
  • 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