Griffin v. Hall

• Decision Date: 25 May 1897
• Citation: 115 Ala. 647,22 So. 156
• Parties: GRIFFIN ET AL. v. HALL ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

22 So. 156

115 Ala. 647

GRIFFIN ET AL. v. HALL ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 25, 1897

Appeal from circuit court, Pike county; J. W. Foster, Judge.

Statutory action of ejectment brought by Hall & Farley, as trustees against G. A. Griffin and G. W. Connor, for the recovery of certain land specifically described in the complaint.

The plaintiffs claimed as purchasers at a sale under an execution which had been issued under a judgment recovered by the plaintiffs against one Foreman. The defendant Griffin claimed as purchaser from said Foreman before the recovery of the judgment. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Upon the hearing of all the evidence, the court gave the general affirmative charge in favor of the plaintiffs, and refused the general affirmative charge requested by the defendants. To each of these rulings the defendants separately excepted.

There were verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs. The defendants appeal, and assign as error the giving of the charge requested by the plaintiffs, and the refusal of the charge requested by the defendants. Affirmed.

M. N Carlisle and E. P. Morrissett, for appellants.

R. L Harmon, for appellees.

HARALSON J.

The appellees recovered judgment against H. Foreman in Pike circuit court, on the 2d November, 1893, for $2,006. The lot of land in the complaint described was levied on by execution on this judgment and sold on the 21st October, 1895. The plaintiffs became the purchasers and received the sheriff's deed. It was admitted on the trial, "that executions had been regularly issued on the judgment since its rendition to the sale, under which the plaintiffs claim,-there being no lapse of an entire term between the issuance of the several executions." On March 6, 1893 nearly seven months before the judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiffs below, H. Foreman executed a deed to the appellant, Griffin, defendant below, to the lot in suit which deed was never recorded. At that time, one Fillingin was in possession of the lot as the tenant of said Foreman, and remained in possession, until the 1st day of September, 1893, paying rents to Griffin, from the date of his purchase from Foreman. On September 1, 1893, Fillingin quit the possession, locked the door, and turned the key over to Griffin, and the building remained closed up and vacant for about 12 months, when the appellant, Connor, went into possession as...