McDaniel v. Sloss Iron & Steel Co.

• Decision Date: 02 July 1907
• Citation: 44 So. 705,152 Ala. 414
• Parties: MCDANIEL v. SLOSS IRON & STEEL CO. ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

44 So. 705

152 Ala. 414

MCDANIEL v. SLOSS IRON & STEEL CO. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

July 2, 1907

Appeal from Chancery Court, Jefferson County; A. H. Benners Chancellor.

Suits by J. A. McDaniel against the Sloss Iron & Steel Company and against the Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Company. Tried together, and submitted together on appeal. From a decree for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

John D Strange and J. G. Crews, for appellant.

Percy &amp Benners and John P. Tillman, for appellees.

SIMPSON J.

These two cases were tried together, and submitted here together, by agreement. The bills were filed by the appellant, and sought to quiet the title as against both defendants to N.E. 1/4 of N.E. 1/4 of section 17, township 18 S., range 1 W., in Jefferson county, and as to the Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Company to the four 40-acre tracts of land in said county described as follows: The N.W. 1/4 of the N.E. 1/4 and the N.E. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4 of section 17, and the S.W. 1/4 of S.E. 1/4 and S.E. 1/4 of S.W. 1/4 of section 8, all in township 18 S., range 1 W. The parties agreed in writing that the defendants, respectively, held perfect paper titles to the lands and that the complainant claimed only by adverse possession. No claim of adverse possession, under Code 1896, § 1541, has ever been filed by the complainant. The testimony shows that complainant is living in a house on the N.E. 1/4 of section 17, township 18, range 1, around which is a fence inclosing 6 or 6 1/2 acres. The decree of the chancellor declares that the defendants have the legal titles to all of the lands respectively claimed by them, and are entitled to the same, except as to the surface of said home place; the minerals thereunder being owned by the Sloss Iron & Steel Company.

The complainant testified that he entered upon the land in 1872 built the house, sold out his claim, and afterwards bought it back, moving there the second time January 10, 1882, since which time he has continued to live there, and that it has been fenced practically all of the time; that he claimed it as his home from the first, but that he knew when he entered it that he did not have any title to it; that he thought it belonged to the United States government; and that he had as much right to it as any one. There was testimony by the complainant and others about complainant's cutting timber on the lands at various places and times. There was also testimony to the effect that there was a field, besides the home place, that had been cultivated by the complainant; but there is not in the record any definite description of said field on which a decree could be rendered, and, while it is stated that it was cleared and enlarged from time to time, there is no evidence from which it could be definitely said that any specified portion of said field had been occupied for any definite time. In order to establish adverse possession, as against the holder of the legal title, "the law is stringent in requiring clear proof of the requisite facts. There must be, first, an actual occupancy, clear, definite, positive, and notorious; second, it must be continued, adverse, and exclusive during the whole period described by the statute; third, it must be with an intention to claim title to the land occupied." 3...