Peavey v. Peavey

• Decision Date: 07 November 1914
• Docket Number: 534
• Citation: 189 Ala. 256,66 So. 474
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Parties: PEAVEY et al. v. PEAVEY et al.

66 So. 474

189 Ala. 256

PEAVEY et al. v. PEAVEY et al.

No. 534

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 7, 1914

Appeal from Chancery Court, Elmore County; W.W. Whiteside Chancellor.

Suit by S.M. Peavey and others against John T. Peavey and others for the sale of land for division. Decree for respondents, and complainants appeal. Affirmed.

Frank W. Lull, of Wetumpka, for appellants.

J.M Holly, of Wetumpka, for appellees.

DE GRAFFENRIED, J.

The only question in this case is one of fact. It is claimed by complainants that the land described in the bill of complaint belonged to Matilda Peavey, the mother of James Peavey, at the time of her death. Respondents claim that this is not true, but that the lands, since they came into the Peavey family, have always belonged to James Peavey. Matilda Peavey went on this land in 1868 or 1869, with her family. So did James Peavey, the son. The family is shown to have been poor and James Peavey and his family always resided upon and cultivated the land, not only during the life of the mother but after the death of the mother, until the death of James Peavey. Since the death of James Peavey the members of his family have been in possession of the lands, and are now in their possession. So far as the evidence goes, the lands were always assessed for taxation by James Peavey in his name. He seems to have executed at least three mortgages on the lands, in which he declares that the lands belonged to him. The complainants were out of possession of the lands when the bill was filed. The respondents were when the bill was filed, and certainly had been for some time before the filing of the bill, in possession of the lands, claiming them as their own in fee simple.

It is impossible to tell from the testimony in the case, with any degree of certainty, whether Matilda Peavey ever in fact claimed to own these lands, or whether her son, who was a grown man, bought the land and moved his mother and her dependent family on the lands, and acted as their protector until his mother's death. There is some testimony tending to support both theories. One fact we do know with certainty and that is that the respondents, when this bill was filed, were in the actual possession of the lands, claiming them as their own. Presumptively, therefore, the title is in them, and the burden was on complainants to overcome this presumption by evidence. The evidence for the complainants is too...