Davis v. Grant
| Decision Date | 06 April 1911 |
| Citation | 55 So. 210,173 Ala. 4 |
| Parties | DAVIS ET AL. v. GRANT. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied April 27, 1911.
Appeal from Chancery Court, Jefferson County; A. H. Benners Chancellor.
Bill by Winston B. Grant against James H. Davis and others to establish a disputed boundary line. Decree for complainant and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
George Huddleston, for appellants.
Sam Will John, for appellee.
The bill in this case was filed by the appellee to establish a disputed boundary line, under section 3052, subd. 5, Code of 1907. Both complainant and respondents derive title through mesne conveyances from one A. G. Morris, who owned the entire tract of land previous to the year 1883. On the 1st day of January, 1883, said Morris and his wife conveyed to William P. White a portion of the land held by him, describing it as "that part of the southwest quarter of section (18) eighteen, township (18) eighteen, range (2) two west described by metes and bounds as follows, viz.: Commencing at the southwest corner of said section eighteen; thence north twenty chains; thence north (65~> 16') sixty-five degrees and sixteen minutes east ten chains; thence south (70~) seventy degrees east eleven and 70/100 chains (11.70) thence south (3~ 30') three degrees and thirty minutes east eleven and 8/100 chains (11.08); thence south (27~) twentyseven degrees east eight and 94/100 chains (8.94); thence south (87~) eighty-seven degrees west twenty-four (24) chains, to the southwest corner of said section eighteen, containing forty-five and 4/100 acres; situated in Jefferson county, Ala." This is the basis of the title of respondents; and the complainant's title is under subsequent conveyances, commencing January 22, 1887, describing the southern boundary of the lands conveyed as "the lands of William White."
The point of controversy is as to the true location of the northern line of the lands conveyed to White, there being a conflict in various surveys, made at different times, as to the true location of the southwest corner of said section 18; the surveys offered in evidence by the respondents placing said corner about 165 feet north of the point fixed by the surveys introduced by the complainant. The evidence shows that, at the time said Morris sold to White, he (Morris) had the lines run under his own supervision and direction; that the northern line was run in the direction shown, in order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Littleton v. Wells
...(1964) ; Duke v. Wimberly, 245 Ala. 639, 18 So.2d 554 (1944) ; Smith v. Bachus, 201 Ala. 534, 78 So. 888 (1918). But see, Davis v. Grant, 173 Ala. 4, 55 So. 210 (1911). See also [Ala.] Code 1975, § 6–5–200(c). The rules governing this type of dispute are, in actuality, a form of statutory a......
-
Parker v. Rhoades
...(1964) ; Duke v. Wimberly, 245 Ala. 639, 18 So.2d 554 (1944) ; Smith v. Bachus, 201 Ala. 534, 78 So. 888 (1918). But see, Davis v. Grant, 173 Ala. 4, 55 So. 210 (1911). See also Code 1975, § 6–5–200(c). The rules governing this type of dispute are, in actuality, a form of statutory adverse ......
-
Dickinson v. Suggs
...(1964) ; Duke v. Wimberly, 245 Ala. 639, 18 So.2d 554 (1944) ; Smith v. Bachus, 201 Ala. 534, 78 So. 888 (1918). But see, Davis v. Grant, 173 Ala. 4, 55 So. 210 (1911). See also [Ala.] Code 1975, § 6–5–200(c). The rules governing this type of dispute are, in actuality, a form of statutory a......
-
Yauger v. Taylor
...define uncertain or disputed boundary lines." The first case to come before this court under this statute, we believe, was Davis v. Grant, 173 Ala. 4, 55 So. 210. Without discussion the court considered and affirmed a on the express ground that a boundary line had been agreed upon and perfe......