Ladd v. Powell
| Decision Date | 09 February 1905 |
| Citation | 144 Ala. 408,39 So. 46 |
| Parties | LADD ET AL. v. POWELL ET AL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chancery Court, Mobile County; Thomas H. Smith Chancellor.
Bill to quiet title by William G. Powell and others against John M Ladd and others. From a decree granting the relief prayed for, respondents appeal. Reversed.
Bestor Gray & Bestor, for appellants.
L. H. & E. W. Faith, for appellees.
This bill was filed to quiet title to land, under section 809 of the Code of 1896. This court has repeatedly held that in order to maintain such a bill the complainant must have the actual or constructive possession, peaceable and undisputed, as contradistinguished from a disputed or scrambling one. Lyon v. Arndt (Ala.) 38 So. 242; Randle v. Daughdrill (Ala.) 39 So. 162; Brand v. U.S.C. Co., 128 Ala. 579, 30 So. 60; Adler v. Sullivan, 115 Ala. 582, 22 So. 87.
The complainants established title through their ancestor, W. G. Powell, the patentee, and in the absence of the actual possession of another the law fixes the constructive possession in him, who has the title. The complainants also established an actual possession of a part of the land by the said Powell, who had a small house on it, and cultivated a small portion thereof in the year 1862. He died in 1864, and the land was abandoned 41 years ago, the house disappeared, timber grew up on the cleared land, and it has been what might be termed wild land for years. The respondents proved possessory acts from 1872 up to the hearing of this cause. Said acts consisted of getting wood off the land at different times, selling logs and cross-ties, permitting a timberman to camp on it, keeping trespassers from going on it and clearing it, paying taxes thereon, and selling the same under a decree of the probate court by the heirs of John M. Ladd, Sr., after his death, and a continuation of acts of dominion by his sons, the purchasers at the sale. We do not here decide that these acts were sufficient to divest the title of the complainants, as this would doubtless be a proper matter for the determination of a jury in an action at law; but such acts are certainly sufficient to contest the possession of complainants to the extent of defeating their right to maintain this bill.
The evidence as to "whose land was it generally known as?" was not legal, but the exclusion of same cannot alter the conclusion reached.
The decree of the chancellor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chestang v. Tensaw Land & Timber Co.
...v. Roberts, 213 Ala. 520, 105 So. 675; Holland v. Coleman, supra; Crabtree v. Alabama Land Co., 155 Ala. 513, 46 So. 450; Ladd v. Powell, 144 Ala. 408, 39 So. 46. 'As to what constitutes peaceable possession under the statute must be left for determination on the facts of each particular ca......
-
Myers v. Moorer
...of Georgia Railroad Company v. Rouse, 176 Ala. 138, 57 So. 706; Holland v. Coleman, 162 Ala. 462, 468, 469, 50 So. 128; Ladd v. Powell, 144 Ala. 408, 410, 39 So. 46; Tilley's Alabama Equity Pleading and Practice, § 237, p. As said in Crump v. Knight, supra [250 Ala. 393, 34 So.2d 595]: 'In ......
-
Ex parte Green, No. 1071195 (Ala. 4/9/2010)
...constitute any of the issues as to the contest of title. These matters are properly here pretermitted. Ladd v. Page 58 Powell, supra [144 Ala. 408, 39 So. 46 [(1905)]' "Ladd v. Powell supports the result but not the proposition that the jurisdiction of the court is destroyed at its very 273......
-
Ex Parte Johnnie Mae Alexander Green Et Al.(in Re Frank Stokes
...which constitute any of the issues as to the contest of title. These matters are properly here pretermitted. Ladd v. Powell, supra [144 Ala. 408, 39 So. 46 [(1905)].]’ “ Ladd v. Powell supports the result but not the proposition that the jurisdiction of the court is destroyed at its very th......