Huggins v. Turner
| Decision Date | 16 October 1952 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 694 |
| Parties | HUGGINS v. TURNER. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
James G. Clower, Troy, for appellant.
Oliver Brantley, Troy, for appellee.
The question to be determined in this case is whether the road which is involved, is a public road. A bill in equity was filed by James Turner (appellee) against William Huggins (appellant) to enjoin the obstruction of a roadway which runs across land owned by William Huggins. A temporary injunction was granted. There was answer and a motion to dissolve the injunction. The motion was not insisted upon and the case proceeded to final decree, it being agreed that the only issue was whether or not the road was a public road. The case was tried orally before the court with the result that the court entered a final decree making the injunction permanent.
The evidence is rather voluminous and it is not practical to state it in detail, although it has been carefully considered. The evidence may be briefly summarized as follows. The Troy-Montgomery Highway, U. S. 231, crosses Conecuh River about three miles north of Troy. A short distance north of the river a road branches off from U. S. 231 to the east, curves north and runs roughly parallel with U. S. 231 several miles, then curves back westerly through Sections 30 and 25 to U. S. 231, through lands owned by the parties to this cause, serving a number of farms along the way. In other words, the road makes a loop of about 4 1/2 miles from where it leaves U. S. 231 north of Conecuh River, coming back into U. S. 231 through the lands of the parties to this cause. James Turner owns the West Half of the NW Quarter of Section 30, Range 21 and William Huggins owns the NE Quarter of Section 25, Range 20, lying between the lands of James Turner and U. S. 231.
The curving road, to which reference has been made, is also connected with U. S. 231 by another road about halfway between the river and the lands of William Huggins, which runs to a dead end. This last-mentioned road was not passable except in dry weather when the suit was filed. It is about a half mile from the home of James Turner to U. S. 231 over the road involved in this suit. It is about a mile and a half over the dead end road and about four and one-half miles to the point where the road leaves U. S. 231 just north of Conecuh River.
The part of the road which is the subject of this suit runs westerly from the lands of James Turner through the NE Quarter of Section 25, which is now owned by William Huggins. The road runs approximately on the line separating the north half of the quarter section from the south half. William Huggins and his predecessors in title did not originally own the east half of this quarter section. The southeast quarter was originally owned by Lloyd Turner, the father of James Turner, who sold it to one Hathaway who sold it to William Huggins. The northeast quarter was acquired by William Huggins in about 1949. The home of one of his predecessors in title was situated on the road in question and he and his tenants had no means of ingress and egress except over this road. In other words, it has only been since 1949 that William Huggins has owned on both sides of the road for the last half mile.
It appears to us to be conceded that the road is a public road from where it leaves U. S. 231 just north of Conecuh River until it enters section 25. The contention of William Huggins is that when it reaches that point, which is his property line, it ceases to be a public road and becomes a private road. On the contrary it is the position of James Turner that the road is a public road for its entire length.
William Huggins first acquired a part of the land in 1928. A considerable number of witnesses testified for the complainant. Their ages vary, some being born as early as 1882 or 1883, but all either had lived or were living in the neighborhood, were familiar with the road and had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mckenzie Cnty. v. Reichman
...which are not intended to deny access or interfere with public traffic do not establish a permissive use of a road. Huggins v. Turner, 258 Ala. 7, 60 So.2d 909, 910–11 (1952); Hoover v. Smith, 248 Ark. 443, 451 S.W.2d 877, 879 (1970); Rasmussen v. Fowler, 245 Mont. 308, 800 P.2d 1053, 1055–......
-
Gulf Refining Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Mobile
...259 Ala. 459, 66 So.2d 736; Dorsey v. Dorsey, 259 Ala. 220, 66 So.2d 135; Haden v. Boykin, 259 Ala. 504, 66 So.2d 708; Huggins v. Turner, 258 Ala. 7, 60 So.2d 909. The question being fairly debatable and neither conclusively proved nor disproved, 'this court, under our settled rule, will no......
-
Ayers v. Stidham, 8 Div. 754
...218 Ala. 19, 117 So. 481; Scruggs v. Beason, 246 Ala. 405, 20 So.2d 774; West v. West, 252 Ala. 296, 40 So.2d 873; Huggins v. Turner, 258 Ala. 7, 60 So.2d 909. There is a different rule as to ways over unreclaimed lands. See Benson v. Pickens County, Ala.Sup., 70 So.2d 647. There was no eff......
-
Whiteside v. Brown
...218 Ala. 19, 117 So. 481; Scruggs v. Beason, 246 Ala. 405, 20 So.2d 774; West v. West, 252 Ala. 296, 40 So.2d 873; Huggins v. Turner, 258 Ala. 7, 60 So.2d 909. * * To entitle appellants to the relief sought it was incumbent on them to show a continuous use of the roadway as a highway by the......