Randle v. Daughdrill
| Decision Date | 31 January 1905 |
| Citation | 142 Ala. 490,39 So. 162 |
| Parties | RANDLE v. DAUGHDRILL ET AL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chancery Court, Cherokee County; Richard B. Kelly Chancellor.
Bill to quiet title by Leona N. Daughdrill and others against Mary E Randle and others. From a decree for complainants, defendant Mary E. Randle appeals. Reversed.
The complainants claimed to own the property described in the bill of complaint as the heirs of Lemuel J. Standifer, and they averred in their bill that they were in the quiet and peaceable possession of said property, and that there was no suit pending to test the validity of the title thereto. It was further averred in the bill that the lands involved in the suit were wild and unimproved lands, that they were without buildings, that there was no inclosures thereon, and that no part of said lands was cleared or in cultivation. The defendants in their answer set up a claim to said property as a vendee from the purchaser of said lands at a tax sale, and it was averred in the answer that the defendant Mrs. Mary E Randle was at the time of the filing of the bill in the peaceable possession of the same and exercising acts of ownership over same. The complainants introduced testimony which showed that Lemuel J. Standifer entered the lands involved in the suit and received a patent from the government thereto, and that the complainants were the heirs of the said Standifer; that the lands were wild and wooded lands, and that complainants had constructive possession thereof. The testimony for the defendant tended to show that Mrs. Randle had received a deed to the lands from the purchaser thereof at a tax sale; the delinquent taxes being due from the said Lemuel J. Standifer. There was other testimony for the defendant tending to show that she paid taxes on the lands after her purchase, that she kept trespassers off, that she had cut tan bark from the lands and had posted notices warning people not to trespass on said property, and had objected to some parties cutting cross-ties from said lands. Upon the final submission of the case upon the pleadings and proof, the chancellor decided that the complainants were entitled to the lands, and so ordered. From this decree the appellant appeals, and assigns as error the rulings of the court below.
Burnett, Hood & Murphree, for appellant.
James Aiken and T. J. Burton, for appellees.
The complainants filed their bill...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rice v. Park, 8 Div. 253.
... ... 797; Gill v ... More, 200 Ala. 511, 76 So. 453; Wood Lumber Co. v ... Williams, 157 Ala. 73, 47 So. 202; ... [135 So. 473] ... Randle v. Daughdrill, 142 Ala. 490, 39 So. 162. The ... evidence of complainants is sufficient to establish the ... required possession to maintain such a ... ...
-
Chestang v. Tensaw Land & Timber Co.
...that these acts 'were sufficient to show that complaints [sic] did not have the peaceable possession of the land.'--Randle et al. v. Daughdrill, et al., 142 Ala. 490, 492, 39 South. 162 * * *. See, also, Lyon v. Arndt, 142 Ala. 486, 38 South. 'It is difficult to lay down any definite rule a......
-
Myers v. Moorer
...Ladd v. Powell, supra [144 Ala. 408, 39 So. 46]; Crabtree v. Alabama Land Co., supra [155 Ala. 513, 46 So. 450]; Randle v. Daugh(d)rill, supra [142 Ala. 490, 39 So. 162]; Donohoo v. Smith, 207 Ala. 296, 92 So. 'This conclusion destroys the jurisdiction of the court over the cause at its ver......
-
Woodland Grove Baptist Church v. Cemetery
...contested, disputed or scrambling possession." Price v. Robinson, 242 Ala. 626, 627, 7 So.2d 568, 569 (1942) (citing Randle v. Daughdrill, 142 Ala. 490, 39 So. 162 (1905), and George E. Wood Lumber Co. v. Williams, 157 Ala. 73, 47 So. 202 (1908)); see also Cobb v. MacMillan Bloedel, Inc., 6......