Mims v. Alabama Power Co., 5 Div. 594

Citation77 So.2d 648,262 Ala. 121
Decision Date20 January 1955
Docket Number5 Div. 594
PartiesGlennie T. MINS v. ALABAMA POWER COMPANY et al.
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

Karl C. Harrison, Columbiana, Glen T. Bashore, Clanton, for cross-appellants.

Martin & Blakey, Alvin W. Vogtle, Jr., Birmingham, for appellee Alabama Power Co. Grady Reynolds, Reynolds & Reynolds, Clanton, for cross-appellee O. L. mims.

MERRILL, Justice.

This is an appeal from a decree establishing a disputed boundary line, which was the relief prayed for in the cross bill of the appellee, Alabama Power Company. The appellant, Mrs. Glennie T. Mims, was permitted to intervene subsequent to the rendition of the final decree for the purposes of appealing to this court.

On August 16, 1941, the respondents Thompson and Smith purchased the timber on 259 acres of land west of the Coosa River including part of the NE 1/4 of Section 25, Township 23 N, Range 15 E in Chilton County from complainant O. L. Mims, and gave a mortgage to him for $500, the unpaid balance of the purchase price. On December 9, 1941, O. L. Mims filed the original bill in this cause to foreclose the mortgage. Thompson and Smith answered that O. L. Mims had pointed out certain lands to them as belonging to him and being bounded on the north by Yellow Leaf Creek, but the Power Company had notified them that it owned lands south of Yellow Leaf Creek and that they had cut timber belonging to the Power Company; that they deposited $279.00 in Peoples Savings Bank of Clanton to be paid to O. L. Mims when he secured a release from the Power Company. They further asked that the Power Company be made a party to the proceeding so it could be determined what amount of money was due O. L. Mims and the Power Company for the timber cut off the lands in dispute.

The answer and cross bill of the Power Company alleged that the line in dispute was the line between Sections 24 and 25; that it owned the fractional S 1/2 of the fractional SE 1/4 of Section 24 and O. L. Mims owned the property immediately south, to-wit: part of the NE 1/4 of Section 25, and that the correct boundary line between the two sections was 1339 feet south of the point where Yellow Leaf Creek empties into the Coosa River, and 903.8 feet south of the point where Yellow Leaf Creek intersects the west line of the SW 1/4 of fractional SE 1/2 of Section 24. (Yellow Leaf Creek flows in an easterly direction across the S 1/2 of S 1/2 of Fractional Section 24.) In its cross bill the Power Company prayed that the court settle the boundary line dispute.

O. L. Mims answered the cross bill, admitting that the Coosa River was the eastern boundary of Sections 24 and 25, and that the Power Company had purchased its lands in 1912 from one W. R. Mims and that G. D. Mims, the father of O. L. Mims was the predecessor in title to him, O. L. Mims. He averred that Yellow Leaf Creek ran along the section line and was the line between Sections 24 and 25; but he claimed in the alternative that W. R. Mims and G. D. Mims had agreed in 1900 that the creek would be the dividing line between the sections and each had been in the open, notorious, adverse and hostile possession of the lands on the north and south sides of Yellow Leaf Creek, respectively, for more than 20 years, and therefore the Power Company owned only that land north of the creek and he owned the lands to the south of it. He later filed an amendment showing that on September 16, 1947, he sold his lands immediately south of the Power Company lands to Glennie T. Mims, but that the Power Company was still seeking to recover a strip of land approximately 900 feet wide, south of the Creek to which it was not entitled.

Testimony was taken at various intervals during the eleven years of litigation but after submission in June 1952 the court rendered a final decree in July 1952, fixing the boundary line as contended for by the Power Company. It further decreed that O. L. Mims was entitled to recover of Thompson and Smith $166.80 as the balance due on the mortgage together with interest at six percent from September 1, 1941, to the date of the decree and a solicitor's fee to be paid out of the fund of $279 which had been deposited in the bank. The Power Company had waived any claim for damages for the timber cut and attorneys' fees.

Subsequent to the rendition of the final decree, appellant Glennie T. Mims was allowed to intervene upon allegation and proof that she had become, during the pendency of the cause, owner of all the property previously belonging to O. L. Mims. We have held that a final decree is not a bar to a subsequent petition to intervene and such a petition is the appropriate method for becoming a party to the cause for the purpose of appealing. Ex parte Ide, 228 Ala. 452, 153 So. 887.

Our recent case of McNeil v. Hadden, Ala., 76 So.2d 160, not announced when this case was submitted, is in point as to several questions presented.

The third, sixth and eighth assignments of error are to the effect that the trial court erred in denying complainant's application for rehearing. The decree denying the rehearing is not subject to review on this appeal. McNeil v. Hadden, supra.

All other argued assignments of error assert that the trial court erred in establishing the boundary line at the location described in the decree, i. e., approximately 1000 feet south of Yellow Leaf Creek.

The first question for our determination is the location of the section line between Sections 24 and 25. In this state all disputes as to lines of sections and subdivisions thereof are to be governed by the United States Survey and located by reference to the original government survey. Taylor v. Fomby, 116 Ala. 621, 22 So. 910; Billingsley v. Bates, 30 Ala. 376.

The evidence was overwhelmingly convincing that the line dividing Sections 24 and 25 lay south of Yellow Leaf Creek and that the line established by the Court agreed with the original government survey. 'And while the boundary line between adjacent landowners may be fixed and changed by agreement or by adverse possession, they cannot relocate a section line as surveyed by the government surveyors.' McNeil v. Hadden, supra .

That brings us to the contention that the predecessors in title of the Power Company and O. L. Mims had agreed to make Yellow Leaf Creek the line between their properties in 1900 and that G. D. Mims, predecessor in title of O. L. Mims, had acquired title to that disputed part of Section 24 lying south of the creek by adverse possession. This contention can avail appellant nothing. It is agreed that the Power Company has paper title to the lands in Section 24 and appellant has paper title to the adjacent lands in Section 25. Therefore, O. L. Mims and his successor cannot tack on any adverse possession of O. L. Mims' predecessor in title, because their deeds describe only lands in Section 25, and even though title to the land in Section 24 south of the creek may have been in O. L. Mims' predecessor, it could pass to O. L. Mims 'only by a conveyance wherein the said strip is sufficiently described or by the status of adverse possession for the required length of time' by O. L. Mims subsequent to the conveyance from his predecessor. McNeil v. Hadden, supra, and cases cited therein.

Appellant's next contention is that O. L. Mims acquired title to the lands in Section 24 south of Yellow...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Watson v. Price
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 3, 1978
    ......SC 2474. Supreme Court of Alabama. March 3, 1978. Rehearing Denied April 7, 1978. ... the fence across the section line in Section 5 was in existence at that time . . . . If, as ... successive possessors is permitted against the co-terminous owner seeking to defeat such title, ... Similarly, in Mims v. Alabama Power Co., 262 Ala. 121, 77 So.2d 648, ......
  • Littleton v. Wells
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • February 22, 2019
    ......Wells2170948Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.February 22, 2019Chip Cleveland of The Cleveland ...Mims v. Alabama Power Co., 262 Ala. 121, 124, 77 So.2d ...Read, 256 Ala. 593, 594, 56 So.2d 644, 645 (1952) (recognizing caselaw as ...210 (1911). See also [Ala.] Code 1975, § 6–5–200(c). The rules governing this type of ......
  • Lay v. Phillips
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 20, 1964
    ......273. J. M. LAY. v. Maicolm PHILLIPS et al. 6 Div. 913. Supreme Court of Alabama. Feb. 20, 1964. ... 3 and section 4 of Township 12, South, Range 5, West.         It is Lay's contention ... Mims v. Alabama Power Co., 262 Ala. 121, 77 So.2d 648. ......
  • Jacks v. Taylor, No. 2060455 (Ala. Civ. App. 11/2/2007)
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • November 2, 2007
    ......2060455. . Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama. . Decided November 2, 2007. . ... Section 4 and a fence line a distance of 4,0135.5 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel ...Tensaw Land & Timber Co. , 390 So. 2d 616, 618 (Ala. 1980). See ...Alabama Power Co. , 262 Ala. 121, 77 So. 2d 648 (1955); McNeil ...Read , 256 Ala. at 594, 56 So. 2d at 645 (stating that "[t]he question ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT