Swift v. Doe ex dem. Williams

• Decision Date: 17 June 1909
• Citation: 162 Ala. 147,50 So. 123
• Parties: SWIFT ET AL. v. DOE EX DEM. WILLIAMS.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

50 So. 123

162 Ala. 147

SWIFT ET AL. v. DOE EX DEM. WILLIAMS.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 17, 1909

Appeal from Circuit Court, Baldwin County; Samuel B. Browne, Judge.

Ejectment by John Doe, on demise of John G. Williams, against Charles A. Swift and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Pillans Hanaw & Pillans and Gailyard & Mahorner, for appellants.

Ervin &amp McAleer, for appellee.

McCLELLAN J.

Common-law ejectment. There were six demises laid, viz., from John G Williams, Thomas F. Stickney, Claudia Watkins, Hattie E. Banks, T. E. Green, and Carrie McNulty. The court, at the request of the plaintiff, gave the general affirmative charge, and accordingly the verdict and judgment was for the whole estate in the land claimed in the complaint.

We have been unable to discover in the bill of exceptions any recital that it contains all, or even substantially all, of the evidence introduced on the trial. The deed from Grist to Thomas F. Stickney was a warranty deed, and, upon subsequent acquirement of title to the land in dispute by the grantor, that title inured to the benefit of the grantee, Stickney. Croft v. Thornton, 125 Ala. 391, 28 So. 84; Wagnon v. Fairbanks, 105 Ala. 528, 17 So. 20; 6 Fed. St. Ann. pp. 514, 515, Rev. St. § 2448 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1512). Under this conveyance Stickney became entitled to an undivided half interest in the lands described in the deed. The description of the lands in the deed was sufficiently definite to permit its further identification by other evidence, parol or in writing. Since the bill of exceptions does not purport to set forth all, or substantially all, of the evidence before the trial court, we must presume that the description in the deed from Grist to Stickney was properly aided by serviceable evidence to that end. It hence results that unless a jury issue was made by evidence of adverse possession, or that issue was prevented by erroneous rulings of the court in excluding defendant's evidence to that purpose, an affirmance must be entered.

No such errors, to the prejudice of defendant, intervened, because the legal title to this land was in the government, at least until the issuance of the certificate (see Case v Edgworth, 87 Ala. 203, 5 So. 783; Ledbetter v. Borland, 128 Ala. 418, 29 So. 579); and hence there could have been no adverse holding thereof (Stringfellow v. Tenn. Co., 117 Ala. 250, 22 So. 997, and authorities therein cited). The...