Garren v. Fields
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | HARALSON, J. |
| Citation | 131 Ala. 304,30 So. 775 |
| Parties | GARREN v. FIELDS. |
| Decision Date | 14 November 1901 |
30 So. 775
131 Ala. 304
GARREN
v.
FIELDS.
Supreme Court of Alabama
November 14, 1901
Appeal from circuit court, Blount county; A. H. Alston, Judge.
Action by A. E. Fields against Thomas B. Garren. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
The plaintiff showed title for the land sued for from the United States to the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company; from that company to the North Alabama Land Company, by deed of warranty of title, and by mesne conveyances from the latter company to himself.
The defendant claimed title by virtue of a deed to himself, from his brother, A. J. Garren, of date February 16, 1884, the said A. J. Garren having purchased the land from the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company on the 27th of January, 1881, and by virtue of alleged adverse possession under this deed as color of title. Both parties claim title from a common source-the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company.
On the same day said A. J. Garren, the defendant's vendor, purchased the land from said railroad company, and the same was conveyed to him by said company, viz. on the 27th day of January, 1881, he, the said A. J. Garren, executed a mortgage to the said railroad company, to secure the purchase money for the land, evidenced by his three notes to the company, falling due respectively, on the 1st days of January, 1882, 1883 and 1884. It was stipulated in this mortgage, that on foreclosure of the same, under the power contained therein, the mortgagee was authorized and empowered to become the purchaser of the land therein conveyed, and to execute a proper deed to the purchaser; that said mortgage was duly recorded, on the 9th February, 1881, and was duly and regularly foreclosed, under its power, on the 12th of December, 1885, default in the payment of two of the purchase-money notes having been made; the mortgagee became the purchaser of the same at said sale, at and for the balance remaining due on the mortgage debt, and received a proper deed to the lands. After this, on the 13th of March, 1886, the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company conveyed the land for value to the North Alabama Land Company and on the 5th of August, 1886, the latter company sold and conveyed the same to the plaintiff.
The evidence on the part of the plaintiff, A. E. Fields, tended to show that the defendant became his tenant of the land in question for many years after his purchase of the same, and recognized his title thereto, even...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Standard Cooperage Co. v. Dearman, 2 Div. 716
...52 So. 86; B.R.I. & P. Co. v. Sloan, 199 Ala. 268, 74 So. 359; Peters v. Sou. Ry. Co., 135 Ala. 533, 537, 33 So. 332; Barren v. Fields, 131 Ala. 304, 307, 30 So. 775; White, McLane & Morris v. Farris, 124 Ala. 461, 470, 27 So. 431. The inference from the evidence is such that the jury shoul......
-
Harrison v. Sollie, 4 Div. 898
...possession adversely to the mortgagee or purchaser at foreclosure sale, though the latter be the original mortgagee. Garren v. Fields, 131 Ala. 304, 30 So. 775. The possession of one who takes a deed from a vendee is deemed adverse to the vendor. Woodstock Iron Co. v. Roberts, 87 Ala. 436, ......
-
Ritter v. Moseley, 6 Div. 268.
...was executed in pursuance of the foreclosure sale. The cases cited to sustain the holding of the court in that case are Garren v. Fields, 131 Ala. 304, 30 So. 775, and Bank of New Brockton v. Dunnavant, 204 Ala. 636, 87 So. 105, wherein the mortgagees became the purchasers at foreclosure sa......
-
Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Redd
...is evidence affording an inference adverse to the right of recovery by the party requesting the charge." See, also, Garren v. Fields, 131 Ala. 304, 30 So. 775; Columbia M. & E. Co. v. Bingham, 169 Ala. 554, 53 So. 995; Boozer v. Jones, 169 Ala. 481, 53 So. 1018. Appellant's counsel insist t......
-
Standard Cooperage Co. v. Dearman, 2 Div. 716
...52 So. 86; B.R.I. & P. Co. v. Sloan, 199 Ala. 268, 74 So. 359; Peters v. Sou. Ry. Co., 135 Ala. 533, 537, 33 So. 332; Barren v. Fields, 131 Ala. 304, 307, 30 So. 775; White, McLane & Morris v. Farris, 124 Ala. 461, 470, 27 So. 431. The inference from the evidence is such that the jury shoul......
-
Harrison v. Sollie, 4 Div. 898
...possession adversely to the mortgagee or purchaser at foreclosure sale, though the latter be the original mortgagee. Garren v. Fields, 131 Ala. 304, 30 So. 775. The possession of one who takes a deed from a vendee is deemed adverse to the vendor. Woodstock Iron Co. v. Roberts, 87 Ala. 436, ......
-
Ritter v. Moseley, 6 Div. 268.
...was executed in pursuance of the foreclosure sale. The cases cited to sustain the holding of the court in that case are Garren v. Fields, 131 Ala. 304, 30 So. 775, and Bank of New Brockton v. Dunnavant, 204 Ala. 636, 87 So. 105, wherein the mortgagees became the purchasers at foreclosure sa......
-
Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Redd
...is evidence affording an inference adverse to the right of recovery by the party requesting the charge." See, also, Garren v. Fields, 131 Ala. 304, 30 So. 775; Columbia M. & E. Co. v. Bingham, 169 Ala. 554, 53 So. 995; Boozer v. Jones, 169 Ala. 481, 53 So. 1018. Appellant's counsel insist t......