Lucas v. Scott
| Decision Date | 11 October 1945 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 351. |
| Citation | 24 So.2d 540,247 Ala. 183 |
| Parties | LUCAS et al. v. SCOTT. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Carl S. Farmer, of Abbeville, and Elizabeth Espy, W. L. Lee & Alto V. Lee, III, and J. R. Ramsey, all of Dothan, for appellants.
G. D. Halstead, of Headland, and Theodore R. Ward of Abbeville, for appellee.
This suit is in equity by appellee against appellants, under Code 1940, Title 47 § 2 et seq., to establish a disputed boundary line between coterminous lands.
The first assignment of error challenges the ruling of the chancellor in denying the defendants' (appellants') demand for a jury.
In equity, a party is not entitled, as of right, to a jury to decide the issues of fact unless it is so provided by statute or constitution. In the absence of such a provision the power and duty to determine finally all questions of fact and law devolve upon the court. Curb v. Grantham, 212 Ala 395, 102 So. 619; 30 C.J.S., Equity, p. 892, § 495.
Under such a status the court may submit an issue of fact to the jury for decision, but the verdict is advisory merely and for the purpose of 'enlightening the conscience of the chancellor,' which he, in his discretion, may reject. Alabama, Tenn. & Northern Ry. Co. v. Aliceville Lumber Co., et al., 199 Ala. 391, 403, 74 So. 441, 446; Hill v Lindsey, 223 Ala. 550, 137 So. 395; Tuscaloosa v. Shamblin, 233 Ala. 6, 169 So. 234; Wilbourne v. Mann, 203 Ala. 26, 81 So. 816; 53 Am.Jur. 781, § 1124; 19 Am.Jur. 272, § 398, 277, § 404.
The statute under which these proceedings were transacted makes no provision for a jury trial and the court will therefore not be put in error for refusing the defendants' demand. Rice and Wilson v. Tobias, 83 Ala. 348, 350, 3 So. 670; Alabama T. & N. R. Co. v. Aliceville Lumber Co., 199 Ala. 391, 403, 74 So. 441; Wilbourne v. Mann, supra.
The remaining assignments of error relate to the trial court's conclusions on matters of fact.
The evidence was taken before a special register and will be here reviewed without the aid of any presumption favoring the decision of the court on the issues thereby presented. Code 1940, Title 13, § 17.
The boundary line in dispute was between appellee's lands on the west and appellants' lands on the east. There were two surveys to establish the line, one for appellants and one for appellee, and divergent results were achieved. The record is voluminous with much evidence seeking to sustain the respective lines contended for by the parties. The trial court, upon consideration, adjudged the true division line to be as defined by appellee's surveyor, Pickett, and decreed that the line be so established and marked as provided by the Code (Title 47, § 4).
We have given studious consideration to the entire record, in consultation, and have reached the conclusion that the decision of the trial court should be sustained.
Though there was evidence tending to verify the contention of the appellants as to the true line separating the two tracts of land, the evidence as a whole, in our view, preponderated rather convincingly that the Pickett survey was the true division line. The government filed notes and the boundary lines of other adjacent and contiguous properties more positively sustain this location, as do fence markings and a hedgerow testified to by numerous witnesses as having been established along this line and recognized as the dividing line of the properties for a long period of time.
The fact that the deed of appellee misdescribed the south forty acres of his land does not affect the result. This same misdescription had prevailed through successive conveyances for over forty years and the evidence tended to substantiate that the respective owners, including appellee who purchased in 1917, were put in possession of the identical property as bounded by the line established by Pickett, and had possessed it and claimed it as theirs during this period. The possessory acts which appellee from time to time exercised for a period of over twenty years, indicative of ownership and claim of title, and sufficient as against appellants' claim to repose title in him under the rule of prescription were the cultivation of part of the land up to the line, the selling of timber on several...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J. C. Jacobs Banking Co. v. Campbell
..."enlightening the conscience of the chancellor"; the court in its discretion may adopt or reject an advisory verdict. Lucas v. Scott, 247 Ala. 183, 24 So.2d 540 (1945). Whether error may be predicated on conduct of parties and counsel before, and the trial court's instructions to, an adviso......
-
Cumens v. Garrett
...judge to strike the jury demand. In its analysis of the issue of jury trial this court quoted from the case of Lucas v. Scott, 247 Ala. 183, 184, 24 So.2d 540, 541 (1945): 'In equity, a party is not entitled, as of right, to a jury to decide the issues of fact unless it is so provided by st......
-
Anderson v. Anderson
...with the court and it may change its mind if it sees fit. Nesmith v. Vines, 248 Ala. 72, 26 So.2d 265 (1946); Lucas v. Scott, 247 Ala. 183, 24 So.2d 540 (1945); Hill v. Lindsey, 223 Ala. 550, 137 So. 395 (1931); ACRP, Rules 39(c) and 52. But the plaintiff contends that inasmuch as the court......
-
Hood v. Hornsby
...in their amended bill. Neither side was entitled to a jury trial as a matter of right. Section 3, Title 47, Code 1940; Lucas v. Scott, 247 Ala. 183, 24 So.2d 540. But the trial court was authorized to submit the issue of fact to a jury for decision for the purpose of 'enlightening the consc......