Jellerson v. Pettus
| Decision Date | 28 June 1902 |
| Citation | 132 Ala. 671,32 So. 663 |
| Parties | JELLERSON v. PETTUS ET AL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from chancery court, Mobile county; Thos. H. Smith Chancellor.
Suit by Margaret Jellerson against Henry J. Pettus and others. From a decree for complainant, Pettus appeals. Affirmed.
Fred'k G. Bromberg and Leslie Hall, for appellant.
L. H. & E. W. Faith, for appellee.
The bill in this case was filed for the purpose of a sale of the land described, for division among joint owners. Henry J Pettus, one of the respondents, filed a plea setting up staleness of demand and lapse of time as a bar to a recovery. A submission was had on the sufficiency of the plea, and from the decree of the chancellor holding the plea sufficient this appeal is prosecuted.
The plea, among other things, averred, in substance, that James E. Saunders, Anatole Rabby, and Antoine Rabby were in possession of all the land in 1861, under claim and color of title to the whole interest therein, and that they made partition of the land on January 7, 1861, and, by a partition deed which purported to convey the entire interest, conveyed to James E. Saunders, in severalty, lot 23, the land here in controversy. That the said Saunders immediately went into possession of said land, claiming the whole interest therein. The plea also avers that appellee, Pettus, by mesne conveyances from Saunders and those claiming under him acquired the claim to the whole interest in this lot, and the possession thereof, and has put $2,000 worth of improvements on the lot under his claim of exclusive ownership of the whole interest. The plea also avers that the complainant was never in possession of the land, and that respondents never knew or heard of complainant's alleged claim until the filing of his bill.
The facts alleged in the plea as to the partition, viz.: the possession under color and claim of title to the whole interest in the land by those making partition; the partition of the land; the making of maps and conveyances in pursuance of the partition, and placing the same upon record; the immediate entry of Saunders, under the partition proceedings into exclusive possession, claiming the whole interest therein,--we think were sufficient to amount to an actual ouster and disseisin of all persons claiming, at that time, to be tenants in common with Saunders as to lot 23. Abercrombie v. Baldwin, 15 Ala. 369, 373; Walker v. Crawford, 70...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duncan v. Johnson
...have been permitted to slumber without assertion or recognition for 20 years are presumed to have no legal existence. Jellerson v. Pettus, 132 Ala. 671, 32 So. 663; Black v. Pratt Coal & Coke Co., 85 Ala. 504, 5 So. 89; Kidd v. Borum, 181 Ala. 144, 61 So. 100; Oxford v. Estes, 229 Ala. 606,......
-
Veitch v. Woodward Iron Co.
...54 Ala. 552; Greenlees v. Greenlees, 62 Ala. 330; Alabama, etc., Co. v. Gulf Coal & Coke Co., 171 Ala. 544, 54 So. 685; Jellerson v. Pettus, 132 Ala. 674, 32 So. 663; Matthews v. McDade, 72 Ala. 388; Garrett's 69 Ala. 429; McArthur v. Carrie, 32 Ala. 75, 70 Am.Dec. 529. It is a well-settled......
-
Schwab v. Nonidez
...for twenty years, are presumed to have no legal existence. Moss v. Davitt, supra, [255 Ala. 513, 52 So.2d 515]; Jellerson v. Pettus, 132 Ala. 671, 32 So. 663.' In a recent case, Ballenger v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company, 271 Ala. 318, 123 So.2d 166(9), we had occasion to refer to......
-
Tarver v. Tarver
...without assertion or recognition for twenty years, are presumed to have no legal existence. Moss v. Davitt, supra; Jellerson v. Pettus, 132 Ala. 671, 32 So. 663. It seems to us to be clear that under the allegations of the bill Reese Tarver not only did not recognize any adverse rights in f......