Duke v. Wimberly
Decision Date | 22 June 1944 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 175. |
Citation | 245 Ala. 639,18 So.2d 554 |
Parties | DUKE v. WIMBERLY et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Horace C. Wilkinson, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Gibson & Hewitt, of Birmingham, for appellees.
The real question involved is a disputed boundary line between the respective lots of the parties, who are coterminous owners.
The evidentiary prerequisites of adverse possession enumerated in Section 828, Title 7, Code of 1940, are therefore inapplicable and are not controlling. Branyon v Kirk, 238 Ala. 321, 325, 191 So. 345; Mink v Whitfield, 218 Ala. 334, 335, 118 So. 559.
The appellant, who instituted the suit, contends that the appellees-respondents are unlawfully in possession of a strip across the east side of his property of approximately 10 1/2 feet in width and that there had been no settled boundary line between the properties until a recent survey by the county engineer which established the division line as claimed by appellant. This appeal is from an adverse decree.
The defense rests upon the doctrine of adverse possession and prescription, and it is clear enough from the evidence that the respondents and their predecessors in title have for more than ten years, in fact for about twenty-five years or longer, been in possession of and claimed the land on their side of the line fence. The testimony also affords the clear inference that this actual possession was with the intention to hold and claim the strip of land up to this location as their own. The evidence further tended to show that this fence, erected by the appellees' predecessor in title had also been recognized as a boundary line fence by the appellant's grantor, who, more than ten years prior to the filing of the present bill, had rebuilt it in its identical location.
Under the governing principles in such cases the defense must be ruled as sustained and the trial court affirmed as correct in denying relief.
Branyon v. Kirk, 238 Ala. 321, 325, 191 So. 345, 348.
This sums up the situation in the present case with the added fact that complainant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Littleton v. Wells
...65 (1975) ; Smith v. Brown, 282 Ala. 528, 213 So.2d 374 (1968) ; Lay v. Phillips, 276 Ala. 273, 161 So.2d 477 (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 [Al......
-
Parker v. Rhoades
...65 (1975) ; Smith v. Brown, 282 Ala. 528, 213 So.2d 374 (1968) ; Lay v. Phillips, 276 Ala. 273, 161 So.2d 477 (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 Cod......
-
Dickinson v. Suggs
...65 (1975) ; Smith v. Brown, 282 Ala. 528, 213 So.2d 374 (1968) ; Lay v. Phillips, 276 Ala. 273, 161 So.2d 477 (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 [Al......
-
McKee v. Goldthwaite
...own, his possession is hostile, though he is claiming more than he owns and though such claim is by a mistake of fact. Duke v. Wimberly, 245 Ala. 639, 18 So.2d 554 (1944). The Alabama rule of prescription may be unique, (Ballenger v. Liberty National Life Insurance Co., 271 Ala. 318, 123 So......