Scott v. Scott

• Decision Date: 20 June 1918
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 946
• Citation: Scott v. Scott, 202 Ala. 244, 80 So. 82 (Ala. 1918)
• Parties: SCOTT v. SCOTT et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

80 So. 82

202 Ala. 244

SCOTT v. SCOTT et al.

7 Div. 946

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 20, 1918

Rehearing Denied Nov. 14, 1918

Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; Hugh D. Merrill, Judge.

Bill by Mary A. Scott against W.H. Scott and others.Decree sustaining demurrer to the bill, and plaintiff appeals.Affirmed.

Charles F. Douglass, of Anniston, for appellant.

Willet Willet & Walker, of Anniston, for appellees.

MAYFIELD J.

Appellant filed her bill to foreclose a deed of trust.The bill was filed 31 years after the mortgage was executed.The mortgagors and the trustee were all dead before the bill was filed.Whether the original beneficiaries are dead does not appear.The complainant acquired no interest in the deed of trust until 13 years after its execution, nor until after the death of one of the grantors and her marriage to the other.She took no steps to collect the debt secured, or to foreclose the deed of trust, for 18 years nor until after the death of her husband, the other grantor.No reason is shown for the delay, except the relation existing between her and the living grantor, her husband, and her relationship of stepmother to the heirs of the other grantor, who was the mother of appellees and the first wife of complainant's husband.

Demurrer was interposed to the bill, and was sustained.The bill was repeatedly amended, and to each amended bill the demurrer was interposed, and sustained; and from the last decree the complainant prosecutes this appeal.

The main grounds of demurrer were: Staleness of demand, laches statute of limitations, and the rule of prescription, which barred any relief under the bill.

We hold that the trial court ruled correctly.

There is shown no reason for this long delay.The respondents--some of them--were shown to have been infants and to have had no power to ratify or authorize any act of their father which would defeat their inheritance from the estate of their mother.We do not mean to intimate that the bill would be sufficient in these averments, if all the respondents had been adults during all the delay.No overt act on the part of any of them is alleged, which recognized the existence of any indebtedness, or of any lien on their lands, by virtue of the deed of trust, or which excused the long delay of more than thirty years in foreclosing this deed of trust.

There are alleged no facts to rebut the presumption of payment after the lapse of more than 20 years.

There is a rule of prescription or a presumption raised from the statute of limitations that any and all claims or rights of property which have been permitted to slumber without assertion or recognition for 20 years have no legal existence, or that they have been adjusted.Jellerson v Pettus,132 Ala. 674, 32 So. 663;Black v. Pratt Coal & Coke Co.,85 Ala. 511, 5 So. 89;Alabama Coal & Coke Co. v. Gulf Coal & Coke Co.,171 Ala. 550, 54 So. 685.

This court has adhered, with uniform tenacity, to the doctrine of prescription, and has repeatedly held that the lapse of 20 years without recognition of right, or admission of liability operates an absolute rule of repose.McArthur v. Carrie's Adm'r,32 Ala. 88, 70 Am.Dec. 529;Semple v. Glenn,91 Ala. 245, 6 So. 46, 9 So. 265, 24 Am.St.Rep. 894;Alabama Coal & Coke Co. v. Gulf Coal & Coke Co.,171 Ala. 550, 54 So. 685.

The doctrine is broader and more comprehensive than a mere statute of limitations, although based on analogous principles of repose to society.Garrett v. Garrett,69 Ala. 429;McArthur v. Carrie's Adm'r,32 Ala. 75, 70 Am.Dec. 529;Harrison v. Heflin,54 Ala. 552;Greenlees v. Greenlees,62 Ala. 330;Baker v. Prewitt,64 Ala. 551;Matthews v. McDade,72 Ala. 377;Bozeman v. Bozeman,82 Ala. 389, 2 So. 732;Alabama Coal & Coke Co. v. Gulf Coal & Coke Co.,171 Ala. 551, 54 So. 685.

As a matter of public policy, and for the repose of society, it has long been the settled policy of this state, as of others that antiquated demands will not be considered...