Ford v. Bradford, 7 Div. 738

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtSOMERVILLE, J.
Citation218 Ala. 62,117 So. 429
Docket Number7 Div. 738
Decision Date07 June 1928
PartiesFORD v. BRADFORD.

117 So. 429

218 Ala. 62

FORD
v.
BRADFORD.

7 Div. 738

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 7, 1928


Rehearing Denied June 28, 1928

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clay County; E.S. Lyman, Judge.

Action for damages by A.C. Ford against J.F. Bradford for unlawful cutting and removal of trees. From a judgment for defendant rendered on appeal from justice court, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. [117 So. 430]

Walter S. Smith, of Lineville, for appellant.

Hardegree & Cockrell, of Ashland, for appellee.

SOMERVILLE, J.

This suit was begun in a justice's court in 1921 to recover damages for the unlawful cutting and removal of ten trees from land claimed to be the property of the plaintiff.

The original complaint consisted of three [117 So. 431] counts, one for the statutory penalty under section 10371 of the Code; one for trespass by "wrongfully cutting and removing" the logs; and one for the conversion of the logs. In the circuit court several common counts were added.

The justice rendered judgment for the plaintiff for $20.10, and the defendant appealed to the circuit court. Three jury trials have been had in that court, and three verdicts and judgments have been rendered for the defendant; the first two having been reversed by this court on successive appeals. Ford v. Bradford, 210 Ala. 48, 97 So. 55; Ford v. Bradford, 212 Ala. 515, 103 So. 549.

It might be reasonably supposed that most of the questions of law and evidence arising in this case had been conclusively settled on the former trials and appeals. On the contrary, where one point has been settled, two or three new ones seem to have cropped out in its stead, and the record now exhibits 82 assignments of error, of which about 60 are for rulings on the evidence--which goes to show that controversial fecundity in litigation does not depend upon the size or importance of its subject-matter.

On the appeal from the judgment of the justice's court, defendant gave a bond in the sum of $58.60, which was in double the amount of the judgment and costs. Before the third trial was had, plaintiff showed to the court that the costs had, since the appeal, been increased to $336, and moved that defendant be required to give a new or additional bond for the protection of plaintiff and the officers of the court. This motion was properly overruled. Section 8783, authorizing the appellate court to dismiss the appeal when the appeal bond is insufficient as security, if the party is unwilling to execute a sufficient bond, relates to its sufficiency with respect to the judgment in the lower court which is superseded by the appeal. It has nothing to do with costs subsequently accruing in the appellate court. If the bond was sufficient in amount when made--and that is not disputed--the trial court was without authority to require further security for costs in the circuit court. Giddens v. Rutledge, 146 Ala. 232, 40 So. 759.

Under count 1 plaintiff could not recover, unless defendant cut and removed the trees in question "willfully and knowingly, without the consent of the owner of the land." Code, § 10371. The cutting and removal were undisputed facts, and the issue tried was (1) whether the land from which the trees were cut belonged to plaintiff; and (2) if so, were they cut and removed by defendant under a bona fide belief that the land belonged to him and not to plaintiff. Ledbetter v. Bryant, 205 Ala. 77, 87 So. 325; Ellard v. Goodall, 204 Ala. 645 (7), (8), 87 So. 196. The dispute here was upon the true location of the boundary line between the land of defendant on the north and of plaintiff on the south. On the broad issue of good faith, defendant was entitled to put in evidence every fact having a logical tendency to induce and establish his honest belief in the fact that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • National Association For Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama Flowers, No. 169
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 1, 1964
    ...of unrelated assignments of error which had been argued together, or 'in bulk,' was insufficient, all of them must fall. Ford v. Bradford, 218 Ala. 62, 65, 117 So. Page 301 429, 431; Taylor v. Taylor, 251 Ala. 374, 383, 37 So.2d 645, 652 653; First National Bank of Birmingham v. Lowery, 263......
  • National Ass'n for Advancement of Colored People v. State, 3 Div. 996
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 28, 1963
    ...162, 117 So.2d 375; Shelby County v. Baker, 269 Ala. 111, 110 So.2d 896; Thompson v. State, 267 Ala. 22, 99 So.2d 198; Ford v. Bradford, 218 Ala. 62, 117 So. 429; 2 A Ala.Dig., Appeal & Error, k736. The reason for this rule is the same as the rule which requires assignments of error to ......
  • Dollar v. McKinney, 7 Div. 380
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 29, 1958
    ...Granade v. United States Lumber & Cotton Co., supra; White v. Yawkey, 108 Ala. 270, 19 So. 360, 32 L.R.A. 199. See Ford v. Bradford, 218 Ala. 62, 117 So. 429, where the real issue was a boundary dispute and counts in trespass and trover were joined with a count claiming the statutory Ad......
  • Cloud v. Southmont Development Co., 6 Div. 796
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 7, 1971
    ...Ala. 479, 97 So.2d 769; Guy v. Lancaster, 250 Ala. 226, 34 So.2d 10, or to exercise a claim of right by prescription. Ford v. Bradford, 218 Ala. 62, 117 So. 429; Lay v. Phillips, 276 Ala. 273, 161 So.2d 477. But the payment of taxes, in connection with visible acts of ownership done upon th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • National Association For Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama Flowers, No. 169
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 1, 1964
    ...of unrelated assignments of error which had been argued together, or 'in bulk,' was insufficient, all of them must fall. Ford v. Bradford, 218 Ala. 62, 65, 117 So. Page 301 429, 431; Taylor v. Taylor, 251 Ala. 374, 383, 37 So.2d 645, 652 653; First National Bank of Birmingham v. Lowery, 263......
  • National Ass'n for Advancement of Colored People v. State, 3 Div. 996
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 28, 1963
    ...162, 117 So.2d 375; Shelby County v. Baker, 269 Ala. 111, 110 So.2d 896; Thompson v. State, 267 Ala. 22, 99 So.2d 198; Ford v. Bradford, 218 Ala. 62, 117 So. 429; 2 A Ala.Dig., Appeal & Error, k736. The reason for this rule is the same as the rule which requires assignments of error to be a......
  • Dollar v. McKinney, 7 Div. 380
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 29, 1958
    ...Granade v. United States Lumber & Cotton Co., supra; White v. Yawkey, 108 Ala. 270, 19 So. 360, 32 L.R.A. 199. See Ford v. Bradford, 218 Ala. 62, 117 So. 429, where the real issue was a boundary dispute and counts in trespass and trover were joined with a count claiming the statutory Admitt......
  • Cloud v. Southmont Development Co., 6 Div. 796
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 7, 1971
    ...Ala. 479, 97 So.2d 769; Guy v. Lancaster, 250 Ala. 226, 34 So.2d 10, or to exercise a claim of right by prescription. Ford v. Bradford, 218 Ala. 62, 117 So. 429; Lay v. Phillips, 276 Ala. 273, 161 So.2d 477. But the payment of taxes, in connection with visible acts of ownership done upon th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT