Ford v. Bradford, 7 Div. 380.

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtGARDNER, J.
Citation210 Ala. 48,97 So. 55
Decision Date21 June 1923
Docket Number7 Div. 380.
PartiesFORD v. BRADFORD.

97 So. 55

210 Ala. 48

FORD
v.
BRADFORD.

7 Div. 380.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 21, 1923


Appeal from Circuit Court, Clay County; W. L. Longshore, Judge.

Action by A. C. Ford against J. F. Bradford, for cutting timber. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Acts 1911, p. 450, § 6. Reversed and remanded. [97 So. 56]

Walter S. Smith, of Lineville, for appellant.

Arthur L. Hardegree, of Ashland, for appellee.

GARDNER, J.

Appellant brought this suit against appellee for the recovery of damages for the cutting of certain timber by the defendant on lands claimed by plaintiff.

There were three counts in the complaint, the first of which sought recovery of the statutory penalty for the cutting of trees; the second being in trespass; and the third in trover. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, from which the plaintiff has prosecuted this appeal.

The plaintiff owned the S.E. 1/4 of the S.W. 1/4 of section 16, township 20, range 9, in Clay county, and the defendant was the owner of the 40 acres adjoining this land on the north, being, of course the N.E. 1/4 of the S.W. 1/4 of said section. Plaintiff also owned the S.W. 1/4 of the S.W. 1/4 of said section, and the defendant also owned the 20 acres on the east side of the N.W. 1/4 of the S.W. 1/4 of this section; but reference to these lands appears in the record only for evidential purposes, relating to the correct boundary lines.

The timber is alleged to have been cut on the S.E. 1/4 of the S.W. 1/4, and the real litigated issue between the parties concerned the true boundary line between this 40 acres and the 40 acres adjoining it on the north belonging to the defendant. The plaintiff purchased this land from one Mary A. Powell in May, 1920, and offered in evidence his deed thereto. The plaintiff then testified that immediately after the execution of this deed he went in possession of the land conveyed, and also offered to show that prior to his taking possession Mary A. Powell, his grantor, was in possession, and had been for more than 30 years. The court sustained the defendant's objection to this evidence, and in this committed error. Such proof not only was for the purpose of establishing the prima facie title to the land in controversy, but likewise as tending to establish an element of adverse possession.

We find no assignment of error raising the question argued in brief of counsel relating to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Alabama Power Co. v. Bodine, 8 Div. 788
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 22, 1925
    ...So. 839; Evans Bros. Cons. Co. v. Steiner Bros., 208 Ala. 306, 94 So. 361; McConnell v. Free, 206 Ala. 83, 89 So. 170; Ford v. Bradford, 210 Ala. 48, 97 So. 55; Jones v. Myrick Lbr. Co., 191 Ala. 448, 67 So. 672. The evidence fails to establish or afford ground for any reasonable inference ......
  • Ford v. Bradford, 7 Div. 738
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 7, 1928
    ...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 arisi......
  • Ford v. Bradford, 7 Div. 551
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 19, 1925
    ...for the statutory penalty for cutting trees, one in trespass, and one in trover. The case was here on former appeal. See Ford v. Bradford, 210 Ala. 48, 97 So. 55. After the cause was remanded, common counts were added. In the latter trial all these counts were submitted to the jury except t......
3 cases
  • Alabama Power Co. v. Bodine, 8 Div. 788
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 22, 1925
    ...So. 839; Evans Bros. Cons. Co. v. Steiner Bros., 208 Ala. 306, 94 So. 361; McConnell v. Free, 206 Ala. 83, 89 So. 170; Ford v. Bradford, 210 Ala. 48, 97 So. 55; Jones v. Myrick Lbr. Co., 191 Ala. 448, 67 So. 672. The evidence fails to establish or afford ground for any reasonable inference ......
  • Ford v. Bradford, 7 Div. 738
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 7, 1928
    ...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 arisi......
  • Ford v. Bradford, 7 Div. 551
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 19, 1925
    ...for the statutory penalty for cutting trees, one in trespass, and one in trover. The case was here on former appeal. See Ford v. Bradford, 210 Ala. 48, 97 So. 55. After the cause was remanded, common counts were added. In the latter trial all these counts were submitted to the jury except t......

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