Harley v. Chandler
| Citation | 204 Ala. 207,85 So. 546 |
| Decision Date | 22 April 1920 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 834 |
| Parties | HARLEY v. CHANDLER. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Covington County; A.B. Foster, Judge.
Bill by W.G. Chandler against W.B. Harley to establish a disputed boundary line between certain sections of land belonging respectively to complainant and respondent. From a decree establishing the line, the respondent appeals. Affirmed.
S.H Gillis and A.R. Powell, both of Andalusia, for appellant.
J Morgan Prestwood, of Andalusia, for appellee.
Appellee filed the bill in this cause to establish and define a disputed boundary line between the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of section 19, township 6, range 16 belonging to him, and the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 20, township 6, range 16, belonging to appellant, in Covington county. The evidence proved a proper case for the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by subsection 5 of section 3052 of the Code of 1907, and the court took steps to establish the line. The final decree, in its description of the line between the parties, followed the report of the register, acting as commissioner, which in turn followed the report of a survey made by Surveyor Pruett, who had been selected by the register in pursuance of the authority of the decree appointing the register to act as commissioner.
Appellant complains that the line shown by the report and established by the decree is far removed from the line in dispute, and therefore that the decree is in error. But we find that the line so established, which, of course, is a part of the line between sections 19 and 20, was run from the northeast corner of section 19--northwest of 20--as an agreed datum post, resulting in a line between the named 40's substantially in accordance with appellee's contention. It is true that the report and the decree undertake to describe, not only the line between the 40's in question, but a line projected southwardly to the south line of the two sections and ending vaguely and irrelevantly up in the air somewhere in that neighborhood; but to the extent that line lies south of the 40's it is of no consequence--it is surplusage. The line decreed between the 40's answers the purpose of the litigation, and, so far as we are able to see, it has been correctly located.
Appellant complains of irregularities in the proceedings by which the line was located. After repeated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yauger v. Taylor
... ... later cases, such as Billups v. Gilbert, 195 Ala ... 518, 70 So. 145, Chappelear v. McWhorter, 204 Ala ... 269, 85 So. 386, and Harley v. Chandler, 204 Ala ... 207, 85 So. 546, it was recognized that a bill following the ... statute was sufficient to confer jurisdiction in the ... ...
-
McCullar v. Conner, 8 Div. 416
...for him to have a survey, if practicable, and, if advisable, inspect the locus personally and make report of his findings. Harley v. Chandler, 204 Ala. 207, 85 So. 546.' We are not to be understood as condoning the appointment of a surveyor without affording notice and an opportunity to obj......
-
Stansell v. Tharp, 8 Div. 221.
... ... survey, if practicable, and, if advisable, inspect the locus ... personally and make report of his findings. Harley v ... Chandler, 204 Ala. 207, 85 So. 546. But neither course ... was obligatory. In his discretion the trial judge could, as ... he did, proceed ... ...
- Miller v. Whittington