Murphy v. Leatherwood

Decision Date10 April 1930
Docket Number7 Div. 922.
Citation221 Ala. 61,127 So. 843
PartiesMURPHY v. LEATHERWOOD ET AL.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; W. B. Merrill, Judge.

Action of ejectment by P. H. Leatherwood and others against Jesse Murphy, individually and as executor of the will of Mary Maddox, deceased. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Willett & Willett, of Anniston, for appellant.

S. W Tate, of Anniston, for appellees.

GARDNER J.

Statutory action of ejectment. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, defendant appeals.

The only assignment of error relates to the refusal of the affirmative charge requested by defendant.

Plaintiffs are the heirs at law of Cornelia Leatherwood, in whom was the legal title to the land here involved at the time of her death in 1908. J. V. Leatherwood was the surviving husband of said Cornelia Leatherwood, and in 1910 he came from Texas to Alabama and conveyed this property to Mary Maddox, who assessed the same for taxes and remained in possession to the time of her death in 1928. Defendant claims as the legatee under the will of Mary Maddox. Plaintiffs, according to their proof, knew nothing of the sale by their father until a short time before bringing this suit. Plaintiffs' father, J. V Leatherwood, died in 1911, at which time these plaintiffs were twenty-one years of age or more. Defendant rests his case upon adverse possession.

A number of witnesses testified to statements made by Mary Maddox while in possession of the land that at her death it would go to the children of Cornelia Leatherwood. One witness added that after making such remark, she further said pointing out this part of the land, "we are not supposed to have anything to do with [it] except look after the taxes, etc."

J. V Leatherwood, the husband, held only a life estate in the land, and his conveyance, though purporting to convey the fee, passed only his life estate. Dallas Compress Co. v. Smith, 190 Ala. 423, 67 So. 289. Hostility to the title of the true owner is an essential element of adverse possession. Williams v. Higgins, 69 Ala. 517. "The burden of proving the possession adverse-that it was taken and held under a claim of title hostile to the title of the true owner-rests upon the party asserting it." Newton v. L. & N. R. Co., 110 Ala. 474, 19 So. 19, 20. Mere possession for the statutory period to perfect a bar will not suffice. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Spradling v. May
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • May 14, 1953
    ...705; Turnipseed v. Moseley, 248 Ala. 340, 27 So.2d 483, 170 A.L.R. 882; Barbaree v. Flowers, 239 Ala. 510, 196 So. 111; Murphy v. Leatherwood, 221 Ala. 61, 127 So. 843; McDaniel v.Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co., 152 Ala. 414, 44 So. 705; Chastang v. Chastang, 141 Ala. 451, 37 So. It is al......
  • Mims v. Alabama Power Co., 5 Div. 594
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 20, 1955
    ...705; Turnipseed v. Moseley, 248 Ala. 340, 27 So.2d 483, 170 A.L.R. 882; Barbaree v. Flowers, 239 Ala. 510, 196 So. 111; Murphy v. Leatherwood, 221 Ala. 61, 127 So. 843; McDaniel v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co., 152 Ala. 414, 44 So. 705; Chastang v. Chastang, 141 Ala. 451, 37 So. The evi......
  • Lightsey v. Stone
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • May 10, 1951
    ...the other undivided one-half interest, thus giving to his grantee the right of possession during the life of Lewis Cole. Murphy v. Leatherwood, 221 Ala. 61, 127 So. 843. Though the contract between Cole and Humphrey purported to relate to the entire fee, it could only convey Cole's life est......
  • Hagan v. Crowley
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • November 15, 1956
    ...705; Turnipseed v. Moseley, 248 Ala. 340, 27 So.2d 483, 170 A.L.R. 882; Barbaree v. Flowers, 239 Ala. 510, 196 So. 111; Murphy v. Leatherwood, 221 Ala. 61, 127 So. 843; McDaniel v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co., 152 Ala. 414, 44 So. 705; Chastang v. Chastang, 141 Ala. 451, 37 So. 'It is ......
  • 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