Haley v. Miller

• Decision Date: 30 June 1915
• Docket Number: 799
• Citation: 69 So. 564,193 Ala. 482
• Parties: HALEY v. MILLER et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

69 So. 564

193 Ala. 482

HALEY v. MILLER et al.

No. 799

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 30, 1915

Appeal from Circuit Court, Winston County; W.B. Bankhead, Special Judge.

Action by C.L. Haley against W.N. Miller and others, in ejectment. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Travis Williams, of Russellville, for appellant.

Ray &amp Cooner, of Jasper, and Mayhall & Stagner, of Haleyville, for appellees.

SAYRE J.

This was an action of ejectment by appellant against appellees. Appellees showed the better paper title. Appellant depended upon his showing of a title by the adverse possession of himself and those under whom he claimed. His complaint stated in the most general way, now is that he was prejudiced by the exclusion of evidence which would have tended to sustain his claim of an adverse holding. It is extremely doubtful that any of the rulings are presented in a way that entitled them, to consideration. Syllacauga Land Co. v Hendrix, 103 Ala. 259, 15 So. 594; Henry v Hall, 106 Ala. 84, 17 So. 187, 54 Am.St.Rep. 22; L. & N.R.R. Co. v. Morgan, 114 Ala. 456, 22 So. 20; Southern Ry. Co. v. Cunningham, 112 Ala. 496, 20 So. 639; Kenan v. Lindsay, 127 Ala. 270, 28 So. 570. However, we have examined the record without finding reversible error.

Objections were sustained to some questions put to the first witness, with a view to showing the possession of Charles Miller, under whom appellant claimed; these rulings on the ground, probably, that the questions did not sufficiently locate and describe the land inquired about. Whether these questions were objectionable or not, there was no reversible error, for this witness and others, including appellee William Miller, in the further course of the trial testified fully as to Charles Miller's possession during his life. It was not, in fact, disputed at any point.

Some declarations by Charles Miller, tending to show the character of his possession, were excluded. Appellant admitted in open court that Hanna Davis, under whose deed appellee William Miller claimed, had title. It was also shown without dispute that Charles Miller was put in possession as the tenant of appellee Miller, his son, who thereby furnished his father a home during the last years of his life. Under these circumstances his vague expressions of ownership were of no probative force as against appellees--appellee Finley seems to have been sued as the tenant of William Miller--unless brought to the knowledge of the then true owner.

Quite a number of the assignments of error are based upon the exclusion of testimony which went to show that during the life of Charles Miller a town site was laid off which included the land in controversy. We are led to infer that this testimony was excluded on the idea that at...