Ford v. Beam

• Decision Date: 15 May 1941
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 108.
• Citation: 2 So.2d 411,241 Ala. 340
• Parties: FORD et al. v. BEAM.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

2 So.2d 411

241 Ala. 340

FORD et al. v. BEAM.

4 Div. 108.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 15, 1941

Rehearing Denied June 5, 1941.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; W. L. Parks, Judge.

John C. Walters, of Troy, for appellants.

J C. Fleming, of Elba, for appellee.

BOULDIN Justice.

Equity jurisdiction extends to proceedings: "To establish and define uncertain or disputed boundary lines, whether the bill contains an independent equity or not." Code of 1923, § 6465, subd. 5, Code 1940, Tit. 13, § 129, subd. 5.

Appellants filed their bill under this statute to settle or establish a disputed boundary line between two residence lots in the City of Troy.

The bill discloses that complainants and respondent are the owners of certain adjoining lots and that the boundary line between them is in dispute. This gives equity to the bill.

The answer in effect admits these facts. Each of the parties sets up what he claims to be the boundary line disclosing their claims overlap on a more or less defined strip. These averments do not defeat the equity of the bill but serve the purpose of presenting the contentions of the parties to be determined by the evidence.

Complainants' muniments of title describe their property as lots 21 and 22 as shown by a designated plat of record.

Respondent's chain of title describes his property as a portion of lot 23, adjoining lot 22 according to the same plat. Lot 22 lies west of lot 23.

Upon submission of the cause on pleading and proof, the trial court decreed: "That the complainants be, and are hereby, declared to be the owners of Lots #21 and 22, as recorded in Deed Book O, at page 407, in the Probate Office of Pike County, Alabama," and, thereupon, appointed a commission "to ascertain and fix the boundary line between the said Lots #22 and 23, and to so fix the same according to the Plat recorded in Deed Book O, at page 407, in the Probate Office of Pike County, Alabama."

This commission, one of whom was an engineer, made their report, accompanied with a plat duplicating that mentioned in the decree, locating the boundary line between lots 22 and 23, as per the plat. This report located this line as running through the residence of Mr. Beam, the respondent, placing some 9 feet of his residence in lot 22.

Coming on for hearing on this report and exceptions thereto the court made his finding, saying: "On this report & the facts as disclosed from Complainant's testimony the dispute has existed for fifty three years. One Jolly bought & built a house on lot 23 in 1881, sometime after he sold this lot to Seay & Seale; the widow of Seay, sold it to Freeman & from Freeman to the Bell estate & from the Bell estate to Respondent. No effort has been made by Complainants or their predecessor in title & possession to establish the true line, but with knowledge that a portion of Respondent's house was on the lot of Complainants & has been for fifty three years, they sat idly by & at this late day calls on a court of equity to grant relief which would be unjust & inequitable. How to rescue conplainants' cause from the doctrine of laches is beyond my perception."

Thereupon, it was "decreed that complainants are not entitled to relief and their said bill is dismissed."

We are of opinion the court misapplied the doctrine of laches.

The long acquiescence in the possession of respondent and his predecessors in title went to the question of adverse possession as relates to boundary lines between adjoining proprietors, resulting in divestiture of title to so much of lot 22 as so adversely held; and calling for the fixation of the present boundary line accordingly.

The statutory remedy looks to the settlement of disputed boundary lines for present and future purposes; to give each proprietor the unquestioned enjoyment of his own; to relieve each of the depressing effect of an uncertain or controverted boundary.

The bill should not have been dismissed. The boundary line should have been established in the light of the whole record. Jenkins v. Raulston, 214 Ala. 443, 108 So. 47; Smith v. Cook, 220 Ala. 338, 124 So. 898; Baldwin v. Harrelson, 225 Ala. 386, 143 So. 558; Clarke v. Earnest, 224 Ala. 165, 139 So. 223.

This litigation has been pending nearly six years. The cause was submitted in this court March 29 of the present year. We think it a proper case to here render the decree the lower court should have rendered.

Without discussing...