Steed v. Knowles

• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama
• Citation: 97 Ala. 573,12 So. 75
• Parties: STEED ET UX. v. KNOWLES.
• Decision Date: 03 January 1893

12 So. 75

97 Ala. 573

STEED ET UX. v. KNOWLES.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 3, 1893

Appeal from circuit court, Clay county; Leroy F. Box, Judge.

Ejectment by John M. Knowles against Alexander M. Steed and another. From judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

The defendant A. M. Steed filed a plea disclaiming the ownership of the property, but admitting that he was in possession of the same, together with the wife, who was the owner thereof. Susan E. Steed pleaded the general issue, and by special pleas adverse possession of 10 years, with color of title obtained by the payment of purchase money for the property. The plaintiff introduced in evidence a deed with covenants of warranty made by Thomas Bonner, Sr., on October 22, 1877 conveying to the plaintiff an undivided half interest in the land sued for, together with other property. The plaintiff then offered to read in evidence a showing as to what Thomas Bonner, Jr., would swear if present, which the defendants had admitted subject to legal objection. The testimony of said Thomas Bonner, Jr., as contained in said showing, tended to show that in 1868 his father, Thomas Bonner, Sr., bought the land sued for, together with 80 acres not involved in this suit, and went into the possession of the same; that on January 12, 1869, he saw defendant A. M. Steed pay his father $600 for a half interest in the land and half interest in the mill, and saw his father sign a receipt for the said $600 and give it to Steed; that his father and A. M. Steed, and Susan E. Steed, his wife went into the possession of the land, and remained in the possession thereof until his father sold to Knowles, and that in August, 1877, his father and A. M. Steed with Susan E. Steed, his wife, were jointly in possession of said land. The defendants separately objected to the portions of this showing as to what Thomas Bonner, Jr., would testify that are italicized, and separately excepted to the court's overruling his objections. Upon the defendants' objecting to that portion of the showing in which the witness said that "in August, 1877, my father and A. M. Steed, with Susan E. Steed, his wife, were jointly in possession of said land," against the objection and exception of the defendants the court permitted the plaintiff to strike out the word "jointly." The court then permitted the defendants' counsel to pass said showing whereupon the defendants, without waiving former rulings of the court thereon, admitted that said witness would testify as set forth in said showing, and objected to said portion of said showing as amended upon the grounds "that the evidence was illegal, in that it was the statement of a conclusion, and did not negative the idea of an entire possession of several parcels of said land." The court overruled this objection, and the defendants duly excepted.

Upon the introduction of one W. R. Pruitt as a witness for the plaintiff he testified that, after he had split some rails on 40 acres of land which originally constituted a part of the tract mentioned in the evidence of Thomas Bonner, Jr., Thomas Bonner, Sr., claimed the rails, and said they had been split on his land; that about a year after this he bought this 40 acres, having made a trade with A. M. Steed and Thomas Bonner, Sr. This witness testified that he had no conversation with Mrs. Steed before he bought the land; that when Susan E. Steed signed the deed, nothing was said about the title, or what interest Thomas Bonner, Sr., had in the land; that he paid $135 for the 40 acres,-$75 of it was paid to Thomas Bonner, Sr.; $60 was paid to Susan E. Steed. The plaintiff then offered in evidence a deed with covenants of warranty made by Thomas Bonner, Sr., and Susan E. Steed, (A M. Steed, her husband, not joining in the deed,) on March 4 1876, conveying the said 40 acres spoken by said witness Pruitt, which was described as the S.E. 1/4 of the S.E. 1/4 of township 20, range 7 E., reciting as its consideration $135. The defendants duly objected to the introduction of said deed in evidence, and reserved an exception to the court's overruling their objection. This witness further testified that Steed and his wife had lived on and cultivated the land sued for since 1871; and that he had heard Mrs. Steed claim the land sued on as her own before Bonner made to deed to plaintiff on August 22, 1877; and that he did not know of plaintiff ever being in possession of said land and collecting any rents. The plaintiff introduced as a witness one Daniel A. Gaston, who testified that the defendant A. M. Steed told him that plaintiff owned a half interest in the mill, and half interest in the land, and that he would like witness to buy the half interest of the plaintiff, Knowles; that he saw the plaintiff, Knowles, and made a contract of purchase with him in writing for his half interest; that he cultivated the portion of the land one year, and when he left he paid the rent to plaintiff, and delivered the land back to him. The defendant A. M. Steed denied that he said to the witness that the plaintiff owned a half interest in the land, but admitted he told him the plaintiff owned a half interest in the mill. This witness further testified that Mrs. Steed forbade his paying any rent for the land to plaintiff, saying "that the land belonged to her;" and that he replied that "it was not material to him to whom he paid the rent." The plaintiff introduced in evidence a mortgage made by both of the defendants to plaintiff for $210, dated May 29, 1878, and properly acknowledged, as to the conveyance of a homestead, in which the property conveyed is described as follows: "Half interest in the mill known as the 'Steed & Bonner Old Mill,' and more recently known as 'Steed & Gaston Mill,' situated on the land belonging to Susan E. Steed and Daniel A. Gaston," and all the machinery and belongings thereof. The defendants objected to the introduction of said mortgage, and duly excepted to the court's overruling their objection. Said mortgage was read to the jury, the court stating "that it was not admitted as a muniment of title, but only in so far as it might be taken as an admission on the part of the defendants." The said mortgage was read to the jury, and defendants asked Mrs. Steed "if she read said mortgage before she signed it;" to which she answered in the negative. They then asked her "if she heard it read before she signed it." Plaintiff objected to this answer, the court sustained the objection, and the defendants duly excepted.

The plaintiff, Knowles, testified, among other things, against the objection and exception of the defendants, that he "gave Gaston the right to go on the land sued for in the fall of 1879." The plaintiff then offered in evidence the tax books showing the assessment of lands sued for taxes for the years 1876, 1877, and 1878. In 1876 and 1877 the land sued for was given in for taxes by A. M. Steed as belonging to Steed & Bonner, and was so assessed. In 1878, Daniel A. Gaston and A. M. Steed each gave in for taxes half of the land sued for. In regard to these assessments there was proof tending to show that the assessor assessed taxes sometimes at the mill and sometimes on the porch of the defendants' residence; that Gaston gave in the assessment at the mill, (Mrs. Steed not being present,) but Steed was present. The proof in this behalf further tended to show that Mrs. Steed was not present at any time when the land was assessed, except when the assessments were made on the porch of her house. The defendants separately objected to the introduction in evidence of each assessment, and separately excepted to the court's overruling each objection. On the examination of Susan E. Steed as a witness, the defendants offered to show by her what passed between her and Thomas Bonner, Sr., in regard to her signing the deed to W. R. Pruitt, hereinbefore mentioned, and to explain an agreement between her and said Bonner as to the division of the purchase money of the 40 acres sold to Pruitt. Plaintiff objected to this testimony on the ground that, Bonner being dead, Mrs. Steed could not testify as to any transaction with or statement by him. The court sustained the objection, and defendants duly excepted. The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that in the fall of 1879, the defendant A. M. Steed (Susan E. Steed not being present) paid him $101.50 as rent in the year 1879 for the half interest in the land. The defendants' evidence was in conflict with this, and tended to show that he did not rent the land from the plaintiff; and that the $101.50 was paid as a credit on the note and mortgage for $210 which defendants owed plaintiff. The defendants introduced evidence tending to show that on January 12, 1869, A. M. Steed bought the land sued for and a half interest in the mill from Thomas Bonner, Sr., and paid $600 for it with his wife's money; that he bought it for his wife, Susan E. Steed; and that they went into possession of the entire tract of land, but have never received the deed therefor from Bonner. The defendants introduced several witnesses, each of whom testified to declarations made by Thomas Bonner, Sr., beginning in 1869 and extending down to the date of the deed of plaintiff, in 1877, to the effect that Bonner had no interest in the land, but had a half interest in the mill, and that the land belonged to Susan E. Steed. The defendants also introduced evidence tending to show that in 1869 and 1870 they placed their tenants on the land sued for, and on March 10, 1871, they moved on the land themselves, and have been in the continuous, adverse possession of said land, Susan E. Steed claiming it as her own, open and notoriously, since January 12, 1869.

Upon the introduction of all the evidence the defendants reque...