Hancock v. Warren, 5 Div. 260
| Decision Date | 02 December 1937 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 260 |
| Citation | 177 So. 907,235 Ala. 180 |
| Parties | HANCOCK v. WARREN. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1938
Appeal from Circuit Court, Tallapoosa County; W.B. Bowling, Judge.
Action in ejectment by J.D. Warren against R.A. Hancock. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Albert Hooton, of Dadeville, for appellant.
Richard H. Cocke, of Alexander City, for appellee.
Appellee sued in statutory ejectment.
Defendant pursuant to Code, § 7457, suggested that the suit arose over a disputed boundary line, and described the location of the line as claimed by him. Plaintiff, by replication, described the location of the boundary line as claimed by him. The jury ascertained the true boundary line to be that claimed by plaintiff, and judgment was entered accordingly.
Defendant appeals, and presents for review the refusal of the affirmative charge for defendant, and denial of his motion for new trial for that the verdict was not supported by the evidence.
The theory of appellant is that plaintiff's muniment of title does not extend over or include the strip of some three acres in dispute. Plaintiff's deed, and that of his predecessor in title, defines the southern boundary of his land as beginning at a subdivision corner of the government survey and running east fifty-two rods, thence northward, etc. Defendant claimed, and the evidence supported his contention that on measuring this south boundary, as defined by the deed, the strip in controversy lies east of and outside the body of land covered by plaintiff's deed. Plaintiff, therefore, had the burden of proving adverse possession for the statutory period of ten years, or such possession for twenty years as would confer title by prescription. It does appear that the possession of plaintiff and those from whom he derived title and possession fell somewhat short of twenty years. In this regard, plaintiff could not go back to the time when both tracts of land were under one ownership, and, so far as appears, the line in controversy had not come into existence.
We are of opinion there was no error in submitting the issues to the jury, and sustaining its finding, on adverse possession for more than ten years.
The plaintiff claimed to a line marked by a line fence. Evidence tended to show this fence was erected by defendant, and recognized by him and the then owner of plaintiff's tract as a boundary line fence.
Further and stronger evidence was to the effect that this fence was pointed out to plaintiff, and to his immediate predecessor in title, as the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Branyon v. Kirk, 8 Div. 917.
... ... v. KIRK. 8 Div. 917.Supreme Court of AlabamaOctober 5, 1939 ... Appeal ... from Circuit Court, Colbert County; Chas ... by adverse possession. Hancock v. Warren, 235 Ala ... 180, 177 So. 907; See, Brantley v. Helton, supra ... ...
-
Spires v. Nix, 4 Div. 672
...establish the rights of the parties with respect to a boundary line dispute. Brantley v. Helton, 224 Ala. 93, 139 So. 283; Hancock v. Warren, 235 Ala. 180, 177 So. 907; Alford v. Rodgers, 242 Ala. 370, 6 So.2d 409. Other cases need not be cited, as there is no question about the The questio......
-
Calvert v. Bynum
...cases, has no application. Spragins v. Fitcheard, 206 Ala. 694, 91 So. 793; Copeland v. Warren, 214 Ala. 150, 107 So. 94; Hancock v. Warren, 235 Ala. 180, 177 So. 907; Guy v. Lancaster, supra; Denton v. Corr, 250 Ala. 149, 33 So.2d 625. A plat or map of lands surveyed by a county surveyor i......
-
Guy v. Lancaster
...§ 828, Code 1940) to which reference is made concerning requisites to the defense of adverse possession is inapplicable. Hancock v. Warren, 235 Ala. 180, 177 So. 907; Denton v. Corr, Ala.Sup., 33 So.2d Upon the question of consideration for an agreement as to the uncertain boundary line, ou......