Donehoo v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 17 December 1896
• Citation: 21 So. 70,113 Ala. 126
• Parties: DONEHOO v. JOHNSON.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

21 So. 70

113 Ala. 126

DONEHOO v. JOHNSON.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 17, 1896

Appeal from circuit court, Blount county; George Brewer, Judge.

This was a statutory action of ejectment, brought by Mary P Johnson against F. G. Donehoo to recover certain lands specifically described in the complaint. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and special pleas suggesting that he had been in the adverse possession of the land sued for for more than three years before the suit was commenced, and had placed thereon valuable improvements; and also the statute of limitations of 10 years. The facts of the case showing the claim of title by the plaintiff and the defendant respectively, and the ruling of the court upon the evidence reviewed on the present appeal, are sufficiently stated in the opinion. During the trial of the cause the defendant introduced testimony tending to show that, since he had been in possession of the land sued for, he had placed valuable improvements thereon, consisting of a dwelling house, barn stable, and the digging of a well, and that he had also planted on said land 600 apple trees, which were of the value of $100. To the testimony as to the planting and value of the apple trees the plaintiff objected, and moved to exclude the same. This motion was granted, the testimony excluded, and to this action of the court the defendant duly excepted. After this the court, ex mero motu, instructed the jury that the apple trees or orchard formed no part of the valuable or permanent improvements on the land. To the giving of this charge the defendant duly excepted. Upon the introduction of all the evidence, the court, at the request of the plaintiff, gave the general affirmative charge in her behalf. To the giving of this charge the defendant duly excepted. There were verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals, and assigns as error the several rulings of the trial court to which exceptions were reserved. Reversed.

Inzer & Ward and Dickinson & Darden, for appellant.

Robinett & Allgood and Emery C. Hall, for appellee.

COLEMAN J.

The appellee sued appellant in the statutory action of ejectment to recover a certain 80-acre parcel of land. Both parties claimed title through John Reid, deceased,-the plaintiff, as his only heir; and the defendant, as a purchaser at chancery sale. After the plaintiff had introduced evidence to show that her ancestor had acquired title and possession of the land as a part of a tract of 600 acres, and had died, and that she was his only heir, the defendant offered to introduce in evidence the pleadings and decree in a chancery court suit instituted by a creditor of John Reid, the purpose of which was to set aside and annul a deed of conveyance of lands made by John Reid for the benefit of his daughter, the plaintiff, and to condemn the lands to be sold for the satisfaction of his debt. The administrator and plaintiff were parties respondent to that proceeding. The decree of the court ascertained that the conveyance was fraudulent and void, and the lands...