Hodges v. Sanderson, 6 Div. 326

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtTHOMAS, J.
Citation105 So. 652,213 Ala. 563
PartiesHODGES v. SANDERSON.
Decision Date18 June 1925
Docket Number6 Div. 326

105 So. 652

213 Ala. 563

HODGES
v.
SANDERSON.

6 Div. 326

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 18, 1925


Rehearing Denied Oct. 22, 1925

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County: R.L. Blanton, Judge.

Action in ejectment by J.M. Hodges against Noah Sanderson. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Curtis, Pennington & Pou, of Jasper, and John P. Middleton, of Hamilton, for appellant.

E.B. & K.V. Fite and C.E. Mitchell, all of Hamilton, for appellee.

THOMAS, J.

The trial was had on counts A, B, and C, and plea of not guilty. This is the second appeal. 209 Ala. 635, 96 So. 871. The former reversal was for the giving of general affirmative charge when there was adverse inference or controverted fact of adverse possession. McMillan v. Aiken, 205 Ala. 35, 40, 88 So. 135. The last trial was had and rulings on charges given and refused were in accord with the former ruling of this court in the same case.

In Cox v. Broderick, 208 Ala. 690, 95 So. 186, the suit was for a strip of land along the lots of coterminous landowners, and the defendant pleaded not guilty, etc. It was held (as to the pertinent question in the instant case) that the provisions of section 2830 of the Code of 1907 had no application to cases involving a disputed boundary between coterminous owners. That the later cases support this announcement is conceded by counsel for appellant. See Home Loan Co. v. Calhoun (Ala.Sup.) 104 So. 797; Gunn v. Parsons (Ala.Sup.) 104 So. 390; Spragins v. Fitcheard, 206 Ala. 694, 91 So. 793; Sanderson v. Hodges, 209 Ala. 635, 96 So. 871; Hopkins v. Duggar, 204 Ala. 626, 87 So. 103; Smith v. Bachus, 201 Ala. 534, 78 So. 888; Smith v. Bachus, 195 Ala. 8, 70 So. 261; Gibson v. Gaines, 198 Ala. 583, 73 So. 929; Hess v. Rudder, 117 Ala. 525, 23 So. 136, 67 Am.St.Rep. 182; McLester Bldg. Co. v. Upchurch, 180 Ala. 23, 60 So. 173; Alexander v. Wheeler, 69 Ala. 332, 340; [105 So. 653] Hoffman v. White, 90 Ala. 354, 7 So. 816; Davis v. Caldwell, 107 Ala. 526, 530, 18 So. 103; Harris v. Byrd, 202 Ala. 78, 79 So. 472; Brown v. Cockerell, 33 Ala. 38.

The intention of adjacent or coterminous landowners in holding to certain established or agreed lines, fences, monuments, or turnrows dividing their lands, is always a question for the jury to decide from all of the attendant relevant facts and circumstances. Cox v. Broderick, supra; Smith v. Bachus, supra. And if the parties intended to hold to such dividing line, regardless of whether it was the true line, if they so hold for the time prescribed by law it completes the bar of the statute. Gibson v. Gaines, supra. Where such a line between coterminous owners is recognized as such line by such owners, with the claim of ownership thereto, for 10 years, it becomes their legal boundary line between their respective properties, regardless of the lines as described in their deeds. Hess v. Rudder, 117 Ala. 525, 23 So. 136, 67 Am.St.Rep. 182; Gunn v. Parsons, supra; Home Loan Co. v. Calhoun, supra; Smith v. Bachus, 195 Ala. 8, 70 So. 261; McLester Bldg. Co. v. Upchurch, 180 Ala. 23, 60 So. 173.

The charges refused to plaintiff and those given at the request of defendant were according to the former ruling in this case. We have no desire to depart therefrom.

The witness Anthony was testifying from a map in evidence shown to be substantially correct. He gave the several markings of his survey or lines with reference to surveys, distances, physical boundaries, pasture fence, public road, and with reference to Sanderson's home as dividing the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Copeland v. Warren, 6 Div. 514
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 14, 1926
    ...and the effect of holding real property to such line, acquiesced in by the respective owners, in Hodges v. Sanderson (Ala.Sup.) 105 So. 652; Gunn v. Parsons (Ala.Sup.) 104 So. 391; Smith v. Bachus, 201 Ala. 534, 78 So. 888; Id., 195 Ala. 8, 70 So. 261. And the subject of latent and patent a......
  • Smith v. Cook, 8 Div. 83.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 24, 1929
    ...not adverse. Hess v. Rudder, 117 Ala. 525, 23 So. 136, 67 Am. St. Rep. 182; Smith v. Bachus, 195 Ala. 8, 70 So. 261; Hodges v. Sanderson, 213 Ala. 563, 105 So. 652. But there is a further provision ingrafted on the foregoing principle that, when one of the coterminous proprietors builds a f......
  • White v. Williams, 1 Div. 499
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 14, 1954
    ...possession which was adverse to the heirs of Mr. White. Mobile & G. R. Co. v. Rutherford, 184 Ala. 204, 63 So. 1003; Hodges v. Sanderson, 213 Ala. 563, 105 So. Our statute on adverse possession, Title 7, Section 828, is as follows: ' § 828. (6069) (2830) (1541-1546) Adverse possession, etc.......
  • Dungan v. Early, 2120495.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • December 13, 2013
    ...525, 23 So. 136, 67 Am. St. Rep. 182 [ (1898) ]; Smith v. Bachus, 195 Ala. 8, 70 So. 261 [142 So.3d 1141] (1915) ]; Hodges v. Sanderson, 213 Ala. 563, 105 So. 652 [ (1925) ].’ ” In the present case, the testimony was clear that, when the Earlys took possession of their land in 2001, the Ear......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Copeland v. Warren, 6 Div. 514
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 14, 1926
    ...and the effect of holding real property to such line, acquiesced in by the respective owners, in Hodges v. Sanderson (Ala.Sup.) 105 So. 652; Gunn v. Parsons (Ala.Sup.) 104 So. 391; Smith v. Bachus, 201 Ala. 534, 78 So. 888; Id., 195 Ala. 8, 70 So. 261. And the subject of latent and patent a......
  • Smith v. Cook, 8 Div. 83.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 24, 1929
    ...not adverse. Hess v. Rudder, 117 Ala. 525, 23 So. 136, 67 Am. St. Rep. 182; Smith v. Bachus, 195 Ala. 8, 70 So. 261; Hodges v. Sanderson, 213 Ala. 563, 105 So. 652. But there is a further provision ingrafted on the foregoing principle that, when one of the coterminous proprietors builds a f......
  • White v. Williams, 1 Div. 499
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 14, 1954
    ...possession which was adverse to the heirs of Mr. White. Mobile & G. R. Co. v. Rutherford, 184 Ala. 204, 63 So. 1003; Hodges v. Sanderson, 213 Ala. 563, 105 So. Our statute on adverse possession, Title 7, Section 828, is as follows: ' § 828. (6069) (2830) (1541-1546) Adverse possession, etc.......
  • Dungan v. Early, 2120495.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • December 13, 2013
    ...525, 23 So. 136, 67 Am. St. Rep. 182 [ (1898) ]; Smith v. Bachus, 195 Ala. 8, 70 So. 261 [142 So.3d 1141] (1915) ]; Hodges v. Sanderson, 213 Ala. 563, 105 So. 652 [ (1925) ].’ ” In the present case, the testimony was clear that, when the Earlys took possession of their land in 2001, the Ear......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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