Smith v. Irvington Land Co.
| Decision Date | 17 December 1914 |
| Docket Number | 833 |
| Citation | 190 Ala. 455,67 So. 250 |
| Parties | SMITH v. IRVINGTON LAND CO. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chancery Court, Mobile County; Stewart Brooks, Special Chancellor.
Bill by G. Hardy Smith, pro ami, against the Irvington Land Company to quiet title to land. Decree for respondent, and complainant appeals. Reversed and rendered.
Gregory L. & H.T. Smith and James H. Kirkpatrick, all of Mobile, for appellant.
Ervin & McAleer, of Mobile, for appellee.
This was a statutory bill to quiet and determine title to land. The bill contained the statutory requirements as to averments, and sought to have the respondent's title to the land in question determined, and the complainant's quieted, so far as the respondent's claim was concerned. There was no cross-bill requiring the complainant to establish his title or claim; but the answer did seek to show and establish the respondent's claim or title to the land in question. The respondent sought no affirmative relief, as it might have done. Code, § 5445, and annotations thereto.
The case was submitted on bill, answer, and proof, including an agreement of counsel as to certain facts upon which the equity of the bill depended. The special chancellor who heard the cause dismissed the bill, on the ground that complainant had not shown such a "peaceable possession" of the lands as the statute (section 5443 of the Code) requires to maintain the bill. In this there was error. The agreement of counsel fully and expressly supplied this proof, and of course was binding on the parties on this trial. In fact, we find no proof of any actual possession at the time of the filing of the bill, except that of complainant. It is true that respondent was claiming title to the land, but had no actual possession. The fact that complainant knew of this claim was no impediment to his filing this bill. The bill was filed for the very purpose of testing the validity of this claim of title. In fact, there would be no equity in the bill if the defendant or any other person was denying or disputing complainant's title, and was not claiming or asserting title or right to the lands. It is only in such cases that the statute authorizes the filing of the bill. It is not the fact that others, or the respondent, is claiming the land that defeats the bill; it is only the fact that they they are in possession, or that there is a scrambling possession which defeats ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woodland Grove Baptist Church v. Cemetery
...is to test the validity of the [defendant's] title, and the burden is on the [defendant] to prove his title." Smith v. Irvington Land Co., 190 Ala. 455, 460, 67 So. 250, 251 (1914); see also Newell v. Manly, 173 Ala. 205, 205, 55 So. 495, 496 (1911) ("The [plaintiff] does not have to prove ......
-
Ward v. Chambless
... ... acquired title have been in the possession of the land under ... claim of title and ownership, and without recognition of any ... right or interest in ... 73; Winters v ... Powell, 180 Ala. 425, 61 So. 96; Dallas Compress Co ... v. Smith, 190 Ala. 423, 67 So. 289; Herren v ... Beck, 231 Ala. 328, 164 So. 904 ... In any ... possession. Newell v. Manley, 173 Ala. 205, 55 So ... 495; Smith v. Irvington Land Co., 190 Ala. 455, 67 ... So. 250; Vaughan et al. v. Palmore, 176 Ala. 72, 57 So. 488; ... ...
-
Davis v. Daniels
...190 Ala. 455, 459, 67 So. 250; Stacey v. Jones, supra. The announcements in Vaughan v. Palmore, supra, Stacey v. Jones, supra, Smith v. Irvington Land Co., supra, and v. Henderson-Boyd Lbr. Co., 197 Ala. 579, 73 So. 70, are in consonance with the statutory requirements of Code, § 5443. The ......
-
Stewart v. Childress
...to relief, and the burden is then upon the respondent to establish his claim to the land. Vidmer v. Lloyd, supra; Smith v. Irvington Land Co., 190 Ala. 455, 67 So. 250; Burkett v. Newell, 212 Ala. 183, 101 So. 836. But when the respondent shows legal title to the land, the burden of avoidin......