Stewart Bros. v. Ransom

Citation87 So. 89,204 Ala. 589
Decision Date28 October 1920
Docket Number8 Div. 318
PartiesSTEWART BROS. v. RANSOM.
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

Appeal from Circuit Court, Morgan County; F. Lloyd Tate, Judge.

Action by Stewart Bros. against W.T. Ransom for the recovery of certain lands. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Sample & Kilpatrick, of Hartsells, for appellants.

E.W Godbey, of Decatur, for appellee.

SAYRE J.

Statutory action in the nature of ejectment; second appeal. Stewart v. Ransom, 200 Ala. 304, 76 So. 70.

Plaintiffs appellants, traced their title, through a mortgage and foreclosure, back to W.M. Lynn, and introduced evidence tending to show that the mortgagor Lynn had been in possession at the date of the mortgage, April, 1913. Defendant introduced a certified copy of a list of lands which included the land in suit, granted by the federal government to the state of Alabama, May 23, 1828, known as the Muscle Shoals List of Lands; a copy of the tract book certified by the Secretary of State of the state of Alabama and showing a grant to H.D. Morrow (to whom the opinion on former appeal refers as "Moore") in 1858; and a deed, dated April, 1914, from Sarah L. Morrow and others, purporting to be the deed of the widow and "the only heirs and distributees of the late Henry S. Morrow, deceased," it having been shown that Henry S. Morrow was one of seven children of Hugh D. Morrow, deceased. Thereupon plaintiffs offered in evidence a judgment in favor of defendant against Lynn aforesaid, execution dated December 9, 1913, levy, sale, and a deed by the sheriff to defendant of the land in suit, dated January 24, 1914; the purpose of this evidence being to show that defendant claimed title under the same Lynn through whom plaintiffs had deraigned title, and so to estop defendant to show a different title.

Defendant was not to be so estopped. "When the plaintiff has proved that he and the defendant claim title to the land in controversy from a common source, and that of the two titles emanating from that source his is the superior, he shows a prima facie right to recover." Warvelle on Ejectment, § 265. and "where the defendant denies that he claims from the same source as the plaintiff, the latter may show that he does so claim by introducing in evidence the various deeds connecting him with such alleged common source" (italics supplied). Id. To the same effect, we think, may be cited Vidmer v. Lloyd, 184 Ala. 153, 63 So. 943, the leading case on appellants' (plaintiffs') brief. But the defendant in ejectment may avail himself of any legal defense, and has the undoubted right to purchase as many outstanding claims of title as he may see fit (Id., § 266), and it would seem that authority hardly need be cited to the further proposition of the same text that--

"Notwithstanding the proof of the insufficiency of his title under the common source, the defendant may still defeat the action by showing that there is a title superior to that of the person or persons under whom both parties claim, and that he is the holder of this title." Id.

Certainly no case of ours denies the proposition. In Birmingham Fuel Co. v. Boshell, 190 Ala. 597, 67 So. 403, cited by appellants, the title of each of the parties was traced back to a common source, but there was no acquisition of an outstanding title. So, generally, in the other cases. But that defendant had the right to acquire as many outstanding titles as he saw fit, and avail himself of any one of them shown to be superior to that of the plaintiffs, is commonly recognized in our cases. Cooper v. Watson, 73 Ala. 252; Harris v. Stevenson, 147 Ala. 537, 41 So. 1008; Francis v. Sheats, 153 Ala. 468, 45 So. 241, 127 Am.St.Rep. 61; Monfee v. Hagan, 201 Ala. 627, 79 So. 189. This will suffice to dispose of several of the assignments of error argued in the brief for appellants.

There was nothing objectionable in the form in which the court gave the general charge for defendant. The instruction was with hypothesis that the jury believed the evidence, and was not a categorical instruction such as was considered in Sherrill v. Merchants' & Mechanics' Bank, 195 Ala. 175, 70 So. 723, and Shipp v. Shelton, 193 Ala. 658, 69 So. 102, cases cited by appellants.

The certified copy of the entry in the tract book relating to the land in suit and showing its grant to H.D. Morrow was properly admitted in evidence. True, the statute (Code, § 3984) provides, in effect, that copies of any evidences of title to lands, furnished by the Secretary of State to the judge of probate, when certified by such judge, are admissible in this state; but this section provides an additional and more convenient method of proof; it is not exclusive; and in our judgment the certificate was admissible under section 3983 of the Code. It was the duty of the Secretary of State to keep a record of all grants and patents issued by the state (Code, § 573), and 3983 provides that all transcripts of books or papers, or parts thereof required by law to be kept in the office of any public officer, when certified by the proper custodian thereof, must be received in evidence in all courts. The same results would be attained on common-law principles even though there were no such statute as section 3983. Hines v. Greenlee, 3 Ala. 73.

The certified copy of the tract book having been properly admitted, thus tracing defendant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Aiken v. McMillan
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 15 Octubre 1925
    ...Girard source by virtue of the statute. Code 1907, §§ 3979, 3980, 3982; Perryman v. Wright, 189 Ala. 351, 66 So. 648; Stewart Bros. v. Ransom, 204 Ala. 589, 87 So. 89. issue of the Baudin patent did not effect or negative the bona fides of the Girard claim as color of title that was support......
  • Moran v. Sch. Comm. of Littleton
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 5 Febrero 1945
    ...255 Mass. 611, 152 N.E. 220; Vonherberg v. Seattle, D.C., 20 F.2d 247;Vendetti v. United States, 9 Cir., 45 F.2d 543;Stewart Bros. v. Ransom, 204 Ala. 589, 87 So. 89;Brenneman v. Dillon, 296 Ill. 140, 129 N.E. 564;Markendorf v. Friedman, 280 Ky. 484, 133 S.W.2d 516, 127 A.L.R. 416;Lobuzek v......
  • Moran v. School Committee of Littleton
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 5 Febrero 1945
    ...246 Mass. 453 . Finer v. Steuer, 255 Mass. 611 . Vonherberg v. Seattle, 20 F.2d 247. Vendetti v. United States, 45 F.2d 543. Stewart Bros. v. Ransom, 204 Ala. 589. Brenneman v. Dillon, 296 Ill. 140. Markendorf Friedman, 280 Ky. 484. Lobuzek v. American Car & Foundry Co. 194 Mich. 533. Kanto......
  • Rollan v. Posey
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 26 Enero 1961
    ...of the Booth Place for thirty-five years, is incompetent evidence and should not be considered under the holding in Stewart Brothers v. Ransom, 204 Ala. 589, 87 So. 89. We have not considered the affidavit as evidence and our decision is not based in anywise on the affidavit. We have not fo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT