Riddle v. Hanson

• Decision Date: 23 November 1922
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 251.
• Citation: 208 Ala. 474,94 So. 729
• Parties: RIDDLE v. HANSON.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

94 So. 729

208 Ala. 474

RIDDLE v. HANSON.

7 Div. 251.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 23, 1922

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clay County; W. L. Longshore, Judge.

Action in ejectment by A. Q. Hanson against W. M. Riddle. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Lackey Pruet & Glass, of Ashland, for appellant.

Garrison & Gay, of Ashland, for appellee.

GARDNER J.

This is a suit in ejectment by appellee against appellant to recover a strip of land particularly described in the complaint. The plaintiff was the owner of the N.W. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4 of section 11, and the N.E. 1/4 of the N.E. 1/4 of section 10 and the defendant owned the two 40's north thereof, the one being S.W. 1/4 of S.W. 1/4 of section 2, and the other S.E. 1/4 of S.E. 1/4 of section 3, all in the same township (22) and range (8). The defendant filed disclaimer of possession of any of the lands named in the complaint, but alleged that he was the owner of the two 40's last above mentioned, and suggested to the court that the suit arose over disputed boundary line between said lands of defendant and plaintiff. There appears to have been no issue taken upon the plea of disclaimer, and under the situation here presented the plaintiff would have been entitled to a judgment upon such disclaimer for the land sued for, as held by this court in Pennington v. Mixon, 199 Ala. 74 74 So. 238. The court made up the issue as to the location of the true boundary line between the lands of the plaintiff and defendant, and the trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff, in which verdict the line was established.

The brief of counsel for appellant discloses that the sufficiency of the verdict to support this judgment is the question of prime importance upon this appeal; and in support of this insistence they rely largely upon the case of Bradford v. Sneed, 174 Ala. 113, 56 So. 532, wherein expressions occur to the effect that a verdict of the jury cannot be aided by reference to extrinsic facts. That authority, however, was explained and to some extent qualified in Lessley v. Prater, 200 Ala. 43, 75 So. 355, where it was said:

"This court in later cases has recognized the efficacy of a reference in the complaint, verdict, or judgment to 'some monument, or actually existing thing,' as appropriate descriptive terms in such solemn affairs."

The description in the verdict must, of course, be sufficient as not to leave the finding of the boundary to the mere discretion or conclusion of the officer executing the writ. Lessley v. Prater, supra; Finney v. Baker, 201 Ala. 521, 78 So. 875; Wade v. Gilmer, 186 Ala. 524, 64 So. 611.

We are of the opinion, however, that the verdict rendered in the instant case, read in connection with the issue made by the complaint, the disclaimer, and the suggestion as to the disputed boundary line sufficiently responded to the issue thus formed, and, though awkwardly worded, when properly construed, comes within the reasonable certainty required by the foregoing decisions.

The plaintiff owned two 40's of land, lying side by side, one-half mile in length east and west, which land is immediately south of the land owned by defendant. Therefore the dividing line between the lands of these parties was a section line, and we think the verdict of the jury discloses that they found the beginning of this dividing line to be the line which extends from a point 24 1/2 feet north of the east end of the wire fence in the N.W. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4 of section 11, and running in a straight line west one-half mile west to a point 74 feet north of the west end of the wire fence in the N.E. 1/4 of the N.E. 1/4 of section 10, in the same township and range.

While as stated by counsel for appellant, there is no reference in the pleadings to a wire fence, and it is only referred to in the evidence, yet, as pointed out in ...