Lacy v. United States, 14869.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Citation | 216 F.2d 223 |
| Docket Number | No. 14869.,14869. |
| Parties | Leonard C. LACY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, upon the relation and for the Use of the TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 04 November 1954 |
216 F.2d 223 (1954)
Leonard C. LACY, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, upon the relation and for the Use of the TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, Appellee.
No. 14869.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
November 4, 1954.
Erle Pettus and Erle Pettus, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., Jackson, Rives, Pettus & Peterson, Birmingham, Ala., of counsel, for appellant.
Charles J. McCarthy, Sol. Tenn. Valley Auth., Joseph C. Swidler, General Counsel, Knoxville, Tenn., R. Lynn Seeber, Knoxville, Tenn., for appellee.
Before BORAH, RIVES and TUTTLE, Circuit Judges.
RIVES, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is from a summary judgment entered pursuant to the District Court's opinion reported in 116 F.Supp. 15. The summary judgment required appellant to remove certain structures placed by him under or in close proximity to a transmission line constructed and maintained across his property by the Tennessee Valley Authority (hereinafter called TVA), as agent for the Government, and enjoined their further maintenance within fifty feet of the center line of the transmission line.
On July 10, 1946, appellant's predecessor in title, one J. W. Turner, granted to TVA a written option to purchase a transmission line easement across the property in suit in the name of the United States. So far as the record shows, this option was never recorded. On May 8, 1947, Turner and his wife executed a grant of easement to the United States which was thereafter duly recorded in the office of the Judge of Probate of DeKalb County, Alabama, where the land lay. Meanwhile, however, on October 26, 1946, Turner had conveyed the property to appellant by warranty deed, making no mention of the outstanding option, and that deed had been recorded in said probate office on February 6, 1947. Appellee very properly concedes in brief:
"For purposes of the motion for summary judgment we accept, as we must, the statements in appellant\'s affidavits that when he bought the property he had no knowledge of any rights claimed by appellee and that construction of the transmission line did not begin until several months after the appellee had acquired the property."
In Alabama the appellee's option for the purchase of the easement was entitled to record, Alabama Code 1940, Title 47, Sections 95 and 96. If properly filed for record, the option would have operated as constructive notice to subsequent purchasers. Alabama Code 1940, Title 47, Section 102. Purchasers subsequent to the execution of the option but prior to the time it is filed for record are, of course, not bound by constructive notice. Spradling v. May, 259 Ala. 10, 65 So.2d 494, 499. The option was not filed for record. Appellant denied that he had any actual notice of the option, or that the appellee had entered upon the lands at the time of his purchase, and strongly supported those denials by affidavits of himself and others. Absent actual notice or prior entry of appellee into possession of the easement, appellant,
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 60 Civ. 4663-CLB
...Twardzik v. Sepauley, 45 F.R.D. 529 (E.D. Pa.1968); United States v. Lacy, 116 F.Supp. 15, 21 (N.D.Ala.1953), rev'd, on other grounds, 216 F.2d 223 (5th Cir. 1954); Higgins v. Shenango Pottery Co., 99 F.Supp. 522, 524-25 (W.D.Pa.1951). The same restriction applies to the party who advances ......
-
US v. Wilson, C75-4024
...equitable relief. Defendants cite both United States v. Desert Gold Mining Co., 448 F.2d 1230 (9th Cir. 1971), and Lacy v. United States, 216 F.2d 223 (5th Cir. 1954), and conclude "the Government, when applying for relief in a court of equity is as much bound to do equity as is a private l......
-
United States v. STATE TAX COM'N OF STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Civ. A. No. 4554.
...appears in its own court with the same rights and the same responsibilities as the humblest litigant. In Lacy v. United States, (5CA) 216 F.2d 223, 225 says: "The Government when applying for relief in a court of equity is as much bound to do equity as is a private litigant. United States v......
-
U.S. v. Bedford Associates, s. 250
...v. United States, 239 F.2d 459 (4th Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 904, 77 S.Ct. 666, 1 L.Ed.2d 666 (1957); Lacy v. United States, 216 F.2d 223 (5th Cir. 1954); cf. United States v. Wood, 466 F.2d 1385, 1389 (9th Cir. 1972) (semble The closest of these cases is the Fourth Circuit's deci......