Hays v. Bouchelle

CourtAlabama Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtDOWDELL, J.
Citation147 Ala. 212,41 So. 518
PartiesHAYS v. BOUCHELLE.
Decision Date31 May 1906

41 So. 518

147 Ala. 212

HAYS
v.
BOUCHELLE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 31, 1906


Appeal from Chancery Court, Greene County; Thomas H. Smith, Chancellor.

"To be officially reported."

Suit by E. F. Bouchelle against Cornelia O. Hays. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Mayfield & Verner, for appellant.

Harwood & McKinley, for appellee.

DOWDELL, J.

The appeal in this case is prosecuted from the decree of the chancellor, overruling the defendant's demurrer to the complainant's bill. The purpose of the bill is to establish the boundary of the land in question, which the bill alleges has been obliterated and become confused. In an elaborate note by Mr. Freeman to the case of Stuart's Heirs v. Coalter, reported in 15 Am. Dec. 745, where many cases bearing on the subject are cited, the equitable doctrine in regard to the confusion of boundaries has been ably reviewed and in a most exhaustive manner, and from this review of the authorities the doctrine may be well stated as follows: The jurisdiction of chancery to establish disputed boundaries of land is ancient and well-defined; but it is not an original or independent [41 So. 519.] jurisdiction, and "it is accordingly settled, as laid down in the principal case, that a court of chancery will not undertake to settle obscured or confused boundaries of land unless some equity is superinduced by the act of the parties or of those through whom they claim." See authorities cited in note on page 746 of the above case.

According to the averments of the bill in the case at bar, the respondent, being the owner of sections 20 and 21, which she had owned and been in possession of for 30 years, sold and conveyed section 20 to the complainant, a copy of which deed is attached as an exhibit to the bill. By this deed, in the description of the land conveyed, no boundaries are given, but the land is merely described as being "all of section 20" in a certain township and range in Greene county, Ala. The bill avers that during the time that said two sections of land belonged to the respondent, or those under whom she derived her title, the corners and boundary line between said sections were lost, obliterated, and destroyed; that such loss, obliteration, or destruction of said corners and boundaries were caused and allowed by the design, act, or negligence of respondent, or of those under whom she claimed said lands; that said corners and boundaries...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Yauger v. Taylor, 2 Div. 916
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 24, 1928
    ...and interfered with a survey of the line by complainant, this was held such fraud as warranted equitable relief. Hays v. Bouchelle, 147 Ala. 212, 41 So. 518, 119 Am.St.Rep. 64. In Turner v. De Priest, 205 Ala. 313, 87 So. 370, an agreement fixing the line followed by possession and acquiesc......
  • Turner v. De Priest, 4 Div. 897
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 10, 1921
    ...92 Ala. 484, 487, 9 So. 262; Wadsworth v. Goree, 96 Ala. 227, 10 So. 848; Guice v. Barr, 130 Ala. 570, 30 So. 563; Hays v. Bouchelle, 147 Ala. 212, 41 So. 518, 119 Am.St.Rep. 64; Gulf Red Cedar Co. v. Crenshaw, 148 Ala. 343, 351, 42 So. 564. When the section concerning the jurisdiction and ......
  • Mcrae v. Hamer, (No. 12557.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 9, 1929
    ...in order to prevent a multitude of suits, or to prevent mischief otherwise irremediable, or the like." In Hays v. Bouchelle, 147 Ala. 212, 41 So. 518, 119 Am. St. Rep. 64, the bill averred that during the time that two sections of land belonged to the respondent the corners and boundar......
3 cases
  • Yauger v. Taylor, 2 Div. 916
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 24, 1928
    ...and interfered with a survey of the line by complainant, this was held such fraud as warranted equitable relief. Hays v. Bouchelle, 147 Ala. 212, 41 So. 518, 119 Am.St.Rep. 64. In Turner v. De Priest, 205 Ala. 313, 87 So. 370, an agreement fixing the line followed by possession and acquiesc......
  • Turner v. De Priest, 4 Div. 897
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 10, 1921
    ...92 Ala. 484, 487, 9 So. 262; Wadsworth v. Goree, 96 Ala. 227, 10 So. 848; Guice v. Barr, 130 Ala. 570, 30 So. 563; Hays v. Bouchelle, 147 Ala. 212, 41 So. 518, 119 Am.St.Rep. 64; Gulf Red Cedar Co. v. Crenshaw, 148 Ala. 343, 351, 42 So. 564. When the section concerning the jurisdiction and ......
  • Mcrae v. Hamer, (No. 12557.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 9, 1929
    ...in order to prevent a multitude of suits, or to prevent mischief otherwise irremediable, or the like." In Hays v. Bouchelle, 147 Ala. 212, 41 So. 518, 119 Am. St. Rep. 64, the bill averred that during the time that two sections of land belonged to the respondent the corners and boundar......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT