Snider v. Shirley
| Decision Date | 30 December 1976 |
| Parties | Lizzie B. SNIDER et al. v. Joseph Emil SHIRLEY, Jr., et al. SC 1771. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Olin W. Zeanah and Wilbor J. Hust, Jr., of Zeanah, Donald, Williams & Hust, Tuscaloosa, for appellants.
E. D. McDuffie of McDuffie & Holcombe, Tuscaloosa, for appellees.
This litigation involves a disputed boundary line between property owned for many years by the Shirley family and the adjoining property owned by the Snider family. According to the record title, the boundary line between the property of each family is the section line. However, the Shirleys contend that, for more than thirty years, both families have recognized as the boundary line between their respective properties an old fence and hedgerow, which the evidence shows has been on the property for many, many years. It is this same fence and hedgerow which were involved in litigation between other coterminous owners in Hagler v. Clark, Ala., 337 So.2d 327, decided September 3, 1976.
This litigation was begun when Mrs. Margaret Shirley Koster filed suit against Lizzie B. Snider and Arlo J. Snider asking the court to establish a boundary line between their respective properties. She alleged that the proper boundary line was the hedgerow and that the defendants Sniders have been destroying the hedgerow and trespassing on her property. Another Shirley, who also owned land adjacent to that of the Sniders, filed a second complaint alleging essentially the same facts. The Sniders denied that the hedgerow was the boundary line and contended that the section line was the boundary between the properties.
The trial court heard evidence from both sides and entered a judgment specifically finding that the boundary line between the parties was the hedgerow with the remnants of a wire fence which had been in existence for more than twenty years, and that it had been recognized as the true boundary line by the parties for many years. The Sniders appealed.
There is evidence from which the trial court could have concluded that the parties have recognized the hedgerow as the dividing line between their property for more than sixty years. Also, there is evidence from which it could have concluded that the Shirley family has claimed the property up to the hedgerow for that period of time. This court has repeatedly held that 'A decree establishing a boundary line between coterminous lands on evidence submitted ore tenus...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campbell v. Carl
...the principle that a decree fixing a boundary line between coterminous owners must only be supported by credible evidence. Snider v. Shirley, 341 So.2d 677 (Ala.1977). Appellants argue that the decree in the instant case is not supported by credible evidence. We Appellee claims the true bou......
-
Rudulph v. Corte
...be reversed on appeal unless it is palpably erroneous or manifestly unjust. Nelson v. Garrard, 403 So.2d 230 (Ala.1981); Snider v. Shirley, 341 So.2d 677 (Ala.1976). "Stated otherwise, the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed if, under any reasonable aspect of the case, its decree i......
-
Gray v. Bradford
...Grove Hill, for appellees. PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Francis v. Tucker, 341 So.2d 710 (Ala.1977); and Snider v. Shirley, 341 So.2d 677 (Ala.1976). See also Ferrell v. Shomo Land Company, Inc., 345 So.2d 297 AFFIRMED. TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, JONES, SHORES, and BEATTY, JJ.,......
-
Davenport v. State, 7 Div. 805
...Justice Jones and the specially concurring opinion of the late Justice Bloodworth, is to be found in the specially concurring opinion at 341 So.2d 677 as "I do not agree that no prejudice need be shown in this case. I simply say that it is clear here that prejudice has been shown under the ......