Hamilton v. Brent Lumber Co.
Decision Date | 27 June 1900 |
Citation | 28 So. 698,127 Ala. 78 |
Parties | HAMILTON v. BRENT LUMBER CO. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from chancery court, Mobile county; Thomas H. Smith Chancellor.
Suit in equity by the Brent Lumber Company against A. J. Hamilton. There was a decree for complainant, from which respondent appeals. Reversed.
The bill in this case was filed by the Brent Lumber Company against the appellant, A. J. Hamilton, and prayed for an injunction pendente lite, which was to be made permanent upon hearing, to restrain the defendant from cutting and removing timber from the lands described as the N. 1/2 of the S.E. 1/4 of section 7, township 4, range 4 E. It was averred in the bill that the lands were included in a grant from the general government to the Mobile & Girard Railroad Company; that the lands upon which was the timber involved in this controversy were purchased by one Abraham Edwards from the Mobile & Girard Railroad in January, 1877; that a few days after said purchase, in the same month and year, Edwards and wife conveyed the deed to said lands to one S. T. W. Sandford that S. T. W. Sandford died many years before the filing of the bill, and left surviving him three grown sons and a widow, and also left a will, which was duly probated, in which his three grown sons became the owners of all his property; that the widow of said S. T. W. Sandford died intestate shortly after the death of her husband; that in August, 1896, the sons of S. T. W. Sandford conveyed the lands involved in this litigation to H. D. Ewing, of New York; that in December, 1897, said Ewing sold the timber on said lands in question to the Pensacola Land & Lumber Company, and that in May, 1898, the Pensacola Land & Lumber Company sold to the complainant, the Brent Lumber Company all the standing timber on said lands; that the Brent Lumber Company was a corporation engaged in the lumber business, and was the owner of and operated a large lumber mill for the sawing of timber and the manufacture of lumber; that, in making the purchase of the standing trees and timber upon the lands in question from the Pensacola Land & Lumber Company it was for the purpose of procuring the timber for the manufacture of lumber. It was then averred in the bill that in October, 1898, after the purchase by the plaintiff from the Pensacola Land & Lumber Company, the defendant, A. J Hamilton, entered upon said lands without the consent or authority on the part of the complainant, and began to cut and remove therefrom large quantities of the standing and growing timber, and was continuing to cut and remove the timber from said lands, and that said Hamilton refused, upon the request of the complainant, to discontinue his cutting and removing, and pretended to have the right to cut and remove the timber on said lands by virtue of a purchase from the Hand Lumber Company. The bill then continues as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kelliher v. Stone & Webster
...law. Erhardt v. Boaro, 113 U. S. 537, 538, 5 S. Ct. 565, 28 L. Ed. 1116; Wadsworth v. Goree, 96 Ala. 227, 10 So. 848; Hamilton v. Brent Lumber Co., 127 Ala. 78, 28 So. 698. The rule is applied in Florida. Carney v. Hadley, 32 Fla. 345, 14 So. 4, 22 L. R. A. 233, 37 Am. St. Rep. 101; Cowan v......
-
State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Ward
...77 So. 574; Mobile County v. Knapp, 200 Ala. 114, 115, 75 So. 881; Driver v. New, 175 Ala. 655, 658, 57 So. 437; Hamilton v. Brent Lumber Co., 127 Ala. 78, 84, 28 So. 698; Ashurst v. McKenzie, 92 Ala. 484, 490-491, 9 So. 262; 28 Am.Jur., Injunctions, § 75, p. 572; 43 C.J.S. Injunctions § 54......
-
Thompson v. Johnson
... ... Co. v. Bessemer, 108 Ala. 238, 18 So. 880. In the ... recent case of Tidwell v. Hitt Lumber Company, 73 ... So. 486, L.R.A. 1917C, 232 (opinion by Mr. Justice Sayre), it ... was held that ... Mobile Co. v. Knapp, 75 So ... 881; Driver v. New, 175 Ala. 655, 57 So. 437; ... Hamilton v. Brent Lumber Co., 127 Ala. 78, 28 So ... 698; Chappell v. Roberts, 140 Ala. 324, 37 So. 241; ... ...
-
Irwin v. Shoemaker
...of a court of chancery to decide in which party the title to realty resides. Driver v. New, 175 Ala. 655, 57 So. 437; Hamilton v. Brent Lbr. Co., 127 Ala. 78, 28 So. 698; Chappell v. Roberts, 140 Ala. 324, 37 So. Counsel for complainant insist, however, that no such possession of the timber......