Jenkins v. Raulston, 8 Div. 800

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Citation108 So. 47,214 Ala. 443
Decision Date18 March 1926
PartiesJENKINS et al. v. RAULSTON.
Docket Number8 Div. 800

108 So. 47

214 Ala. 443

JENKINS et al.
v.
RAULSTON.

8 Div. 800

Supreme Court of Alabama

March 18, 1926


Rehearing Denied April 22, 1926

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; W.W. Haralson, Judge.

Bill in equity by D.T. Crownover and Elizabeth Raulston against J.M. Jenkins and others. From a decree for complainant, Raulston, Crownover having died, respondents appeal. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Ernest Parks, of Scottsboro, for appellants.

D.P. Wimberly and John F. Proctor, both of Scottsboro, for appellee.

This case having been submitted under rule 46, the opinion of the court was delivered by Mr. Justice MILLER.

This is a bill in equity filed by D.T. Crownover and his daughter, Elizabeth Raulston, against J.M. Jenkins and others, heirs at law of Paulina E.T. Jenkins, deceased, seeking relief in two aspects: First, to settle a disputed boundary line between the adjoining lands of complainants and the respondent; and, second, seeking an estoppel against respondents as to the location of the boundary line between their respective lands. This appeal is by respondents from the final decree in the cause in favor of complainants.

The court overruled demurrers to the bill as to its seeking to establish the disputed boundary line, and sustained demurrers to the bill as to its seeking an estoppel against respondents as to the location of this boundary line.

Prior to the amendment of subdivision 5 of section 3052, Code of 1907 (Acts 1923, p. 764), the court had jurisdiction to establish disputed boundary lines, but the bill had to aver some facts showing right to equitable relief in order to give equity to the bill. Ashurst v. McKenzie, 9 So. 262, 92 Ala. 484; Jasper v. Eddins, 94 So. 516, 208 Ala. 431. This bill in that aspect was drawn to meet those [108 So. 48] decisions, and was not subject to the demurrers of the respondents. Since the Act of 1923, p. 764, approved October 1, 1923, this subdivision 5 of section 3052, Code 1907 (now section 6465, Code of 1923), reads: The circuit court in equity matters has jurisdiction: "5. To establish and define uncertain or disputed boundary lines whether the bill contains an independent equity or not." These words, "whether the bill contains an independent equity or not," were added by this act. This bill was filed February 12, 1924, and the decree on the demurrer was rendered on May 1, 1924, after this amendment by the act was written in this section; and it was unnecessary for this bill to allege some facts showing an independent equity. Acts 1923, p. 764, § 1; section 6465, Code of 1923.

But the respondents insist this act of 1923, amending section 3052 of the Code of 1907, is unconstitutional, that it violates section 11 of the Constitution of 1901, which declares that the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. This act does not contravene that section of the Constitution. The right to establish and define uncertain or disputed boundary lines belongs to a court of equity. This amendment to the statute does not enlarge the jurisdiction of the court of equity on the subject, but simply does not require an averment of facts in the bill showing an independent equity to render the bill of complaint free from objection by demurrer. Turner v. De Priest, 87 So. 370, 205 Ala. 313; Goodman v. Carroll, 87 So. 368, 205 Ala. 305, and authorities supra.

Since this decree on this demurrer was rendered, and since the answer and plea were filed, sections 6439, 6440, and 6441 appear in the Code of 1923. They are new statutes therein, and they are on the subject of boundaries and proceedings to determine them between adjoining landowners. The Code of 1923 containing them went into effect on August 17, 1924. The pleadings in this cause, as to the six acres of land hereinafter mentioned, were concluded before the Code of 1923, containing these new sections, became operative, and they are not before us for consideration.

The bill was amended by complainants as to that part setting...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • Delfelder v. Teton Land & Investment Co., 1792
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • August 29, 1933
    ...Hannah, 3 Ore. 302, 305; Cagger v. Lansing, 64 N.Y. 417, 428; Winkler v. Korzuszkiewicz, 118 Kan. 470, 235 P. 1054; Jenkins v. Raulston, 214 Ala. 443, 108 So. 47; In re Dutton's Estate, 208 Pa. 350, 57 A. 719; 19 C. J. 1214, 1218; 34 C. J. 950; Freeman on Judgments, 5th ed., sec. 865; 9 Cal......
  • Delfelder v. Land Co., 1792
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • August 29, 1933
    ...Hannah, 3 Or. 302, 305; Cagger v. Lansing, 64 N.Y. 417, 428; Winkler v. Korzuszkiewicz, 118 Kans. 470, 235 P. 1054; Jenkins v. Raulston, 214 Ala. 443, 108 So. 47; In re Dutton's estate, 208 Pa. 350, 57 A. 719; 19 C.J. 1214, 1218; 34 C.J. 950; Freeman on Judgments, 5th ed., sec. 865; 9 Cal. ......
  • Smith v. Cook, 8 Div. 83.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 24, 1929
    ...are entitled to a decree if the court finds a disputed boundary, rather than to deny all relief as was done here. Jenkins v. Raulston, 214 Ala. 443, 108 So. 47. There this court held that, as the bill prayed that the boundary line be established, though complainants were not entitled to rel......
  • Yauger v. Taylor, 2 Div. 916
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 24, 1928
    ...until the Act of October 1, 1923, Acts 1923, p. 764. This statute, as last amended, came up for consideration in Jenkins v. Raulston, 214 Ala. 443, 108 So. 47. As appears from the opinion and more fully from the original record, which has been examined, that case involved six or more acres ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • Delfelder v. Teton Land & Investment Co., 1792
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • August 29, 1933
    ...Hannah, 3 Ore. 302, 305; Cagger v. Lansing, 64 N.Y. 417, 428; Winkler v. Korzuszkiewicz, 118 Kan. 470, 235 P. 1054; Jenkins v. Raulston, 214 Ala. 443, 108 So. 47; In re Dutton's Estate, 208 Pa. 350, 57 A. 719; 19 C. J. 1214, 1218; 34 C. J. 950; Freeman on Judgments, 5th ed., sec. 865; 9 Cal......
  • Delfelder v. Land Co., 1792
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • August 29, 1933
    ...Hannah, 3 Or. 302, 305; Cagger v. Lansing, 64 N.Y. 417, 428; Winkler v. Korzuszkiewicz, 118 Kans. 470, 235 P. 1054; Jenkins v. Raulston, 214 Ala. 443, 108 So. 47; In re Dutton's estate, 208 Pa. 350, 57 A. 719; 19 C.J. 1214, 1218; 34 C.J. 950; Freeman on Judgments, 5th ed., sec. 865; 9 Cal. ......
  • Smith v. Cook, 8 Div. 83.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 24, 1929
    ...are entitled to a decree if the court finds a disputed boundary, rather than to deny all relief as was done here. Jenkins v. Raulston, 214 Ala. 443, 108 So. 47. There this court held that, as the bill prayed that the boundary line be established, though complainants were not entitled to rel......
  • Yauger v. Taylor, 2 Div. 916
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 24, 1928
    ...until the Act of October 1, 1923, Acts 1923, p. 764. This statute, as last amended, came up for consideration in Jenkins v. Raulston, 214 Ala. 443, 108 So. 47. As appears from the opinion and more fully from the original record, which has been examined, that case involved six or more acres ......
  • 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