Faught v. Leith
| Citation | 201 Ala. 452,78 So. 830 |
| Decision Date | 09 May 1918 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 736 |
| Parties | FAUGHT v. LEITH et al. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; T.L. Sowell, Judge.
Suit in equity by S.W. Faught against B.D. Leith and others. From a decree for respondents, complainant appeals. Affirmed.
J.H. Bankhead, Jr., and Ray & Cooner, all of Jasper, for appellant.
A.F. Fite; of Jasper, for appellees.
The equity of the bill in this cause is not questioned, and rests upon the principle, well recognized in this state, that the right to mine is servient to the right of the owner of the surface to have it perpetually sustained in its natural state. Bibby v. Bunch, 176 Ala. 585, 58 So. 916.
Numerous affidavits were introduced in evidence by the respective parties, and, in addition thereto, the trial court visited the property and made a personal examination and investigation of same, as well as of the respondent's mining operations. The decree of the court discloses that the conclusion reached was based upon the affidavits, and also upon this personal investigation of the property thus visited. Clearly, therefore, this court has not before it the full evidentiary data the trial court had, and his conclusion upon the facts will not therefore be here disturbed. Warble v. Sulzberger, 185 Ala. 603, 64 So. 361; Dancy v. Ratliff, 77 So. 688; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Jones, 190 Ala. 70, 66 So. 691.
By what is here said we do not mean to indicate that a like result would not have been reached had the record not shown such personal investigation by the trial court. Indeed, after a careful examination of the affidavits, we are strongly inclined to the view that the preponderance of the evidence thus offered supports the conclusion of the trial court in favor of the respondent's insistence. We need not, however, enter into a consideration of that phase of the case.
It results that the decree appealed from will be here affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watt v. Lee
...the inherent right to view the premises as was done in the exercise of a sound discretion, such court rendering the decree. Faught v. Leith, 201 Ala. 452, 78 So. 830; Jenkins v. Steel Cities Chemical Co., 208 Ala. 95 So. 22; Adalex Construction Co. v. Atkins et al., 214 Ala. 53, 106 So. 338......
-
Mutual Service Funeral Homes v. Fehler
...In some of the cases it does not seem to have been pursued, but the decree was not reversed because of such failure. Faught v. Leith, 201 Ala. 452, 78 So. 830; Jenkins v. Steel Cities Chemical Co., 208 Ala. 643, 95 So. 22; Watt v. Lee, 238 Ala. 451 (20-21), 191 So. 628; Fuller v. Blackwell,......
-
Patton v. Endowment Department of A.F. & A.M. of Alabama
... ... 182; Folmar Mercantile Co. v. Town ... of Luverne, 203 Ala. 363, 367, 83 So. 107; Jefferson ... v. Sadler et al., 155 Ala. 537, 46 So. 969; Faught ... v. Leith et al., 201 Ala. 452, 78 So. 830; Wilson v ... Horton, 212 Ala. 87, 101 So. 740; Sovereign Camp, ... W.O.W., v. Colvin, 218 Ala ... ...
-
Irwin Fishing & Hunting Club v. Cobb
... ... act which disturbs his ownership and possessory rights, and ... having no other claim to equitable relief, Faught v ... Leith, 201 Ala. 452, 78 So. 830; Jenkins v. Steel ... Cities Chemical Co., 208 Ala. 643, 95 So. 22. When so, ... and the facts giving the ... ...