Hood v. Hornsby
Decision Date | 23 August 1985 |
Parties | Eugie Pearl HOOD and Oval Snyder v. Ralph HORNSBY and Iler Vee Hornsby. 84-246. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Nelson Vinson of Vinson, Guyton & Wood, Hamilton, for appellants.
Bill Fite, Hamilton, Neil Taylor, Jr., and Phil Campbell, for appellees.
This appeal involves a boundary line dispute between coterminous landowners.
Appellants, plaintiffs below, raise two points on this appeal: (1) that the jury verdict in favor of the defendants, and the court's judgment entered thereon, were contrary to the great preponderance of the evidence, and (2) that the trial court erred in submitting the factual issues to a jury.
Appellants Oval Snyder and Eugie Pearl Hood, along with W.J. Buckner, filed a complaint to establish the true coterminous boundary between the lands of each appellant and the lands of the appellees. Buckner did not prosecute his claim and suffered a default judgment to be entered against him.
In their complaint, plaintiffs described the coterminous boundary between them. The claims of the parties are best shown by the following drawing:
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
Specifically, as is apparent from the drawing, appellant Snyder claims the true boundary is a fence row which runs north-northeasterly from Marion County Road # 48, and appellant Hood claims the southern boundary is a turn row shown on the diagram by a dotted line.
A survey prepared by a registered surveyor was introduced into evidence during the trial, and all parties called witnesses to establish their claims to the disputed property.
Appellants are familiar with the principles of law which usually govern our review in cases such as this, but they contend that those principles are inapplicable in this case, because the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence. Appellants cite such cases as Cooper v. Peturis, 384 So.2d 1087 (Ala.1980), wherein this Court opined that "when the preponderance of the evidence is against the verdict, so as to clearly convince the Court that it is manifestly unjust, the verdict will be set aside," and Posey v. Myers, 370 So.2d 986 (Ala.1979), wherein the Court held: "Where there is no evidence to support a jury verdict the trial court should grant a motion for a new trial on that ground."
We cannot agree that there was "no evidence" to dispute the adverse possession claims of appellants. Appellee Ralph Hornsby paid taxes on the disputed strips and stated that he intended to possess all the land described in his deed.
The principles of law we apply are succinctly set out in James v. Mizell, 289 Ala. 84, 87-88, 265 So.2d 866, 868-69 (1972):
To continue reading
Request your trial