Grant v. Nations
| Decision Date | 11 April 1911 |
| Citation | 172 Ala. 83,55 So. 310 |
| Parties | GRANT ET AL. v. NATIONS. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; C. C. Nesmith, Judge.
Action by W. B. Grant and others against A. L. Nations. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Tillman Bradley & Morrow and M. M. Baldwin, for appellants.
John T Glover, for appellee.
Statutory ejectment. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal.
An essential (to their recovery) link in the chain of plaintiffs' asserted title to the land in question is the deed from William A. Evers to Lee White, of date March 2 1907. The testimony shows, without dispute, that on that date and prior thereto the land in controversy was held, adversely, by the McGimseys (defendants), and "that neither of the plaintiffs, nor said Lee White, their grantor, nor the said William A. Evers, grantor of the said Lee White, had been in possession of said property since the 7th of September, 1903. * * *"
In the Code of 1907, which became effective after the deed from Evers to White was executed, the following provision was, in section 3839 of that codification, added to section 1530 of the Code of 1896: * * *" The quoted provision of the statute (section 3839) is without force to affect the rights of the defendants, who held adversely when the conveyance was executed. Davis v. Curry, 85 Ala. 133, 4 So. 734; Carr v. Miller, 161 Ala. 658, 49 So. 802.
By express limitation in Code 1907, § 10, that codification did not affect any defense existing at the time it became effective. In Skains v. Barnes, 53 So. 268, consideration was given the term defense, employed in this section and in section 95 of the Constitution. The law in force and effect when the conveyance from Evers to White was executed (March 2, 1907) rendered that conveyance void, an utter nullity, as to these defendants. Dexter & Allen v. Nelson, 6 Ala. 68; Harvey v. Carlisle, 23 Ala. 635; Bernstein v. Humes, 60 Ala. 582, 31 Am. Rep. 52; Davis v. Curry, 85 Ala. 133, 4 So. 734; Mahan v. Smith, 151 Ala. 482, 44 So. 375; Carr v. Miller, 161 Ala. 658, 49 So. 802.
The legal result, protective of the rights of the adverse holders, was a defense within the mentioned limitation. Code, § 10; Bridges v. McClendon, 56 Ala. 327. If the statute (section 3839) was susceptible of a construction that would abrogate the common-law doctrine before stated, that consequence would not have been affected by the establishment, as appellants content was done by that section, of a mere rule of evidence. If the statute was given that construction, and was applied here, the effect would be, obviously, to validate, as against these defendants, a conveyance that, when executed, was void as to them. A legislative effort similar in principle to that was pronounced constitutionally invalid by this court in Alabama Life Insurance Company v. Boykin, 38 Ala. 510.
Accordingly, in no event, under this record, could the plaintiffs recover in statutory ejectment; and, in consequence, the errors assigned were, if errors, innocuous to plaintiffs.
The judgment of the court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Addenda.
An esteemed practitioner in this court has very kindly called our attention to the fact that this decision is immediately opposed to the proposition stated in the first headnote in the report of Witherington v. White, 165 Ala. 316, 51 So. 726. Having been delivered at this term (April 11, 1911), Grant v. Nations is still within the control of the court. The court has again fully considered the ruling in question, and thereupon reaffirms the ruling in Grant v. Nations, and overrules, in this particular, Witherington v. White, 165 Ala. 316, 51 So. 726.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grayson v. Muckleroy
... ... time Mollie Jackson was in possession, holding adversely to ... Badham, and therefore, under the decision of Grant et al ... v. Nations, 172 Ala. 83, 55 So. 310, said deeds were ... void, and the subsequent amendment of the statute authorizing ... the action ... ...
-
Gerald v. Hayes
...of ejectment by the grantee against the adverse holder. Mahan v. Smith, supra; Bernstein v. Humes, 60 Ala. 582, 31 Am.Rep. 52; Grant v. Nations, supra. Nor the case changed by the rule that by statute the property and possession of a grantor pass as fully by his conveyance "as if seizin had......
-
Hornsby v. Tucker
... ... is made is void as to him adversely holding, or as to those ... in privity with him. Grant v. Nations, 172 Ala., 83, ... 86, 55 So. 310 ... Whether, ... at the time the Freeman or the McKenzie deed, or both, were ... executed, ... ...
-
Nichols v. Nichols
... ... or vice there was in it still sticks to conveyances executed ... while it was of force. Grant v. Nations, 172 Ala ... 83, 55 So. 310; Curtis v. Riddle, 59 So. 47. It is ... obvious that our adaptation of the doctrine at its best, or ... ...