Lyon v. Arndt
| Decision Date | 10 January 1905 |
| Citation | 38 So. 242,142 Ala. 486 |
| Parties | LYON v. ARNDT. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chancery Court, Mobile County; Thomas H. Smith, Chancellor.
Suit by Emily C. Lyon against George C. Arndt. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. Affirmed.
The bill was filed under the statute authorizing the filing of bills in chancery to quiet title, and to determine claims for real estate. In the bill the complainant averred that she was in the actual, peaceable possession of the lands described, claiming to own and did own the same. The other averments of the bill were in substantial compliance with the statute. The respondent, in his answer, denied that the complainant owned the lands or was in peaceable possession of them before the institution of the suit, and averred that at the time of the institution of the suit the complainant's title and right to possession were disputed. The evidence introduced was in irreconcilable conflict; the testimony for the complainant tending to show that her agent had built a one-room house on the lands before the institution of the suit, and that timber had been cut from the land under her authority, while the testimony for the defendant tended to show that he purchased the lands after the institution of the suit, and that his grantors and those through whom he claimed had been in peaceable possession of the lands for many years. On the final submission of the cause upon the pleadings and proof, the chancellor decreed that the complainant was not entitled to relief, and ordered the bill dismissed; he reciting in his opinion that the evidence was not satisfactory to show that complainant was in peaceable possession at the time of the institution of the suit.
Ervin & McAleer, for appellant.
Charles L. Bromberg and Massey Wilson, for appellee.
To maintain this bill, it requires a peaceable possession, as contradistinguished from disputed or contested possession, and it should be under claim of ownership. Code 1896, § 809; Brand v. U.S. Car Co., 128 Ala. 579, 30 So. 60; Adler v. Sullivan, 115 Ala. 582, 22 So. 87. We think the facts fully warranted the chancellor in dismissing the bill upon the final hearing.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chestang v. Tensaw Land & Timber Co.
...237 Ala. 218, 186 So. 153; Kinney v. Steiner Bros., 167 Ala. 494, 52 So. 593; Holland v. Coleman, 162 Ala. 462, 50 So. 128; Lyon v. Arndt, 142 Ala. 486, 38 So. 242. 'It is also clear that to constitute a contested, disputed or scrambling possession, it is not necessary that the possession o......
-
Carr v. Moore
... ... Johnson v. Johnson, 147 Ala. 543, 41 So. 522; ... Foy v. Barr, 145 Ala. 244, 39 So. 578; Randle v ... Daughdrill, 142 Ala. 490, 39 So. 162; Lyon v ... Arndt, 142 Ala. 486, 38 So. 242; Cooper v ... Cooper, 78 So. 383 ... Complainants, showing title to the land, were in the ... ...
-
Continental Trust Co. v. Tallassee Falls Mfg. Co.
... ... and claims to real estate, or as an effort to remove a ... specific cloud from its title. ' Citing Lyon v ... Arndt, 142 Ala. 486, 38 So. 242, and other cases ... That ... opinion concludes: ... 'The ... decree appealed from is ... ...
-
Watson v. Baker
...The rule indicated in Hicks v. Stone, supra, is the rule that obtains, notwithstanding the expressions in the earlier cases. Lyon v. Arndt, 142 Ala. 486, 38 So. 242; Randle v. Daughdrill, 142 Ala. 490, 39 So. Carr v. Moore, 203 Ala. 223, 82 So. 473. The purpose of this appeal appears to be ......