Green v. Jordan

• Decision Date: 11 January 1888
• Citation: 3 So. 513,83 Ala. 220
• Parties: GREEN ET AL. v. JORDAN.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

3 So. 513

83 Ala. 220

GREEN ET AL. v. JORDAN.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 11, 1888

Appeal from circuit court, Lee county; J. M. CARMICHAEL, Judge.

Statutory real action in the nature of ejectment brought on the 2d day of August, 1884, by Georgia Ann Jordan against J. J. Green and C. I. Hooper for the recovery of a certain tract of land lying and situated in Lee county, and described in the complaint as "the east half of the east half of the south-west quarter of section twelve, township 19, range 26 excepting two acres in the south-east corner, containing eighteen acres," etc. The plaintiff claims the said tract of land by virtue of a deed alleged and proved to have been executed to her by one Stephen Holman, on September 21 1871, and which transferred to her "the south half of the north half of the east half of the south-west quarter of section twelve, township nineteen, range twenty-six, except two acres in the south-east corner, containing eighteen acres," etc. The defendants objected to the introduction of said deed in evidence, on the grounds that it was irrelevant, incompetent, and that it did not describe the lands sued for. The court overruled each of said objections and the defendants duly excepted. Plaintiff alleged that Stephen Holman had made a mistake in the description of the land deeded to her in the deed of September 21, 1871, and that the mistake had been corrected by another deed by Stephen Holman to her, bearing date of August 15, 1884, and she sought to introduce the said deed of August, 1884, in evidence, in connection with the other deed made in 1871 whereby the description of the land had been corrected. The defendants objected to the introduction of this deed, bearing date of August, 1884, in evidence; but the court overruled their objection, and let the deed go in evidence, to which defendants excepted. Defendants contended that they had claimed the lands in controversy, and had been holding the same adversely to all the world for a long period before plaintiff brought suit, and was in possession of said lands when the present suit was instituted. They based their title to said lands upon a deed made to them by the sheriff of Lee county. They showed that at the fall term of the circuit court of Lee county for 1878 the said Green recovered a judgment against the said Stephen Holman, and that on the first day of September, 1879, after the execution from that judgment had been levied on the said lands, they were sold by the sheriff, and that the defendant J. J. Green became one of the purchasers, and that the sheriff made a deed of said lands to him and George Hooper, of whom the defendant C. I Hooper is the personal representative. Defendants showed further that at the spring term of the circuit court of said county, the court, on motion of said Holman, set aside and vacated the above-mentioned sheriff's deed made to the defendants, and that the same thereby became absolutely void. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

John M. Chilton, for appellants.

George P. Harrison, Jr., for appellee.

SOMERVILLE J.

1. The setting aside of the sheriff's sale of the lands in controversy, and the vacating of the sheriff's deed under which the defendants claimed title, annulled the only muniment of title which they had, and left them in the possession of the lands thereafter as mere trespassers. Scranton v. Ballard, 64 Ala. 402.

2. The plaintiff might, therefore, be entitled to recover against the defendant on the strength of her prior actual possession of the premises, apart from the validity or sufficiency of the muniments of title introduced by her. Wilson v. Glenn, 68 Ala. 383; Eakin v. Brewer, 60 Ala. 579.

3. The deed of August 15, 1884, having been executed by Holman to the plaintiff after the commencement of this suit, would not avail to support a recovery in this action, and was improperly admitted in evidence. It may be that the plaintiff had an equitable title to the land obtained through Holman's deed executed to her in September, 1871, in which there entered a mere mistake of description, and that a court of equity would perfect her title by compelling specific performance. But courts of law take no cognizance of equitable estates. They deal only with legal titles. Hooper v. Railway Co., 78 Ala 213. To support an ejectment the plaintiff must have title at the commencement of the suit, and a title subsequently accruing will not authorize a recovery. Goodman v. Winter, 64 Ala. 411; Pollard v. Hanrick, 74 Ala. 334. It has...