Lindsey v. Atkison
| Decision Date | 08 April 1948 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 490. |
| Citation | 35 So.2d 191,250 Ala. 481 |
| Parties | LINDSEY et al. v. ATKISON. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 13, 1948.
E. O. Baldwin, of Andalusia, for appellants.
S H. Gillis and J. L. Murphy, both of Andalusia, for appellee.
The bill was filed in September 1946 by some of the heirs at law of E. Lindsey, Jr., deceased, against other such heirs seeking a sale of a twelve acre tract of land in Covington County for division among the joint owners. Upon proof had orally before the chancellor, a decree was rendered dismissing the bill, from which decree this appeal is prosecuted.
Among the defendants was Inez Atkison who owned one twenty-fifth interest in the land. This property was by the tax collector sold on August 31, 1939, for nonpayment of state and county taxes, and at the sale the State of Alabama became the purchaser. Subsequent thereto (March 20, 1940), the State Land Commissioner transferred the certificate of purchase to J. E. Atkison, Sr., who was a bona fide purchaser, and who prior to such purchase, had no interest in the property. Thereafter (October 29, 1941), said Atkison transferred all of his right, title and interest to the land and the certificate to Inez Atkison, to whom the Judge of Probate of Covington County executed a deed bearing date of July 8, 1946.
It appears undisputedly that Inez Atkison at once, upon her purchase from J. E. Atkison, Sr., on October 29, 1941, went into possession of this twelve acre tract, moving into the four room house, making valuable improvements upon the property, expending some few hundred dollars thereon, and that at least two of the heirs were employed by her in making some of these improvements.
It further appears undisputedly that she continued to remain in possession of said land, openly claiming the same adversely as her own, and that the heirs of E. Lindsey, Jr., deceased, had knowledge of such adverse claim, which has continuously prevailed.
The chancellor found from the evidence that said Inez Atkison had been in the active, open and exclusive possession and control of the property for more than three years from the date when she was entitled to demand a deed therefor, as provided by section 295, Title 51, Code of 1940, and that any claim the other parties to this cause may have had to the property was barred by the three year statute of limitations. And, as we have previously observed, the adverse character of the claim of Inez Atkison was brought to the knowledge of the other heirs. We are of the opinion the chancellor reached the correct conclusion.
We may concede, for the purpose here in hand, the invalidity of the tax sale, as contended by counsel for appellants, as it was had against the estate of E. Lindsey, Jr., deceased. Webb v. Griffin, 243 Ala. 468, 10 So.2d 458. And we further concede that a joint owner or tenant in common, who pays taxes on the property or redeems the same presumably acts for the benefit of all joint owners, and it will be so determined if such right is seasonably exercised. Cotton v. Cotton, 236 Ala. 459, 183 So. 442; Salter v. Odom, 240 Ala. 462, 199 So. 687.
But, as found stated in Cotton v. Cotton, supra [236 Ala. 459, 183 So. 443], there is a limitation even to this principle to the effect there must be 'no adverse holding of the possession for a period that is beyond the statute of limitations.'
The argument of counsel is to the effect there should be here shown an adverse possession of ten years. Here, Inez Atkison did not pay any taxes, nor redeem from a tax sale. Bobo et al. v. Edwards Realty Co., Ala.Sup., 34 So.2d 165. She merely purchased from one who bought in good faith from the State. The argument overlooks the statute peculiarly applicable to such sales. Section 295, Title 51, supra. All of the heirs of E. Lindsey, Jr., deceased, were of full age and sound mind. None of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hamilton v. Adkins
-
Nicholas v. Cousins
...loss of his title. Scramlin v. Warner, Supra; Cox v. Tompkinson, Supra; Livingston v. Livingston, Supra; Lindsey v. Atkison, 250 Ala. 481, 35 So.2d 191 (1948); Carney v. Simmonds, 49 Cal.2d 84, 315 P.2d 305 (1957). But the acts of a cotenant in possession which appear hostile to the world a......
-
Howard v. Harrell
...exclusiveness as to put the other original tenants in common on notice. Ratliff v. Ratliff, 234 Ala. 320, 175 So. 259; Lindsey v. Atkison, 250 Ala. 481, 35 So.2d 191; McGhee v. Walker, 268 Ala. 521, 108 So.2d This opinion in no way impinges upon the principle that possession and use of the ......
-
Chastang v. Washington Lumber & Turpentine Co.
...from a tax sale is generally said to act for the benefit of all joint owners, if such right is seasonably exercised. Lindsey v. Atkison, 250 Ala. 481, 35 So.2d 191. However, our cases are not clear as to whether a tenant in common or joint owner whose right to redeem is not barred can redee......