Thompson v. Johnson

Decision Date14 February 1918
Docket Number1 Div. 10
Citation78 So. 91,201 Ala. 315
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clarke County; Ben D. Turner, Judge.

Bill by J.E. Thompson against W.B. Johnson. From the decree complainant appeals. Affirmed.

T.J Bedsole and F.E. Poole, both of Grove Hill, for appellant.

Q.W Tucker and W.D. Dunn, both of Grove Hill, for appellee.


When the chancery court ceased to exist by operation of law pending causes therein were transferred for trial or decision to the circuit court. Ex parte City Bank & Trust Co., 76 So. 372. The latter court was clothed with the power either to set aside a former submission and have a resubmission of the cause in that court, or to render decision on the orginal submission.

Appellant filed a bill on August 19, 1916, praying a temporary writ of injunction restraining appellee from cutting and removing timbers from certain of appellant's lands alleged to be in the possession of appellant.

The bill avers that the land is principally valuable for its timber, and that said respondent has entered thereon and is cutting and hauling large quantities of timber and threatening to cut and remove all of the merchantable timber from said lands, in disregard of complainant's rights; and that unless restrained, respondent will cut and remove all of said timber, rendering said land practically worthless, to the irreparable injury of complainant. It further avers that respondent is insolvent and unable to pay any judgment that might be rendered or obtained against him for damages.

Appellee filed no demurrer testing the equity of the bill, but answered, admitting that complainant "owns an interest" in the lands in question, but denying that complainant owns the entire interest in said lands and the timber thereon in fee simple; and averring that appellee purchased on the 1st day of August, 1906, from Thomas N. Nash, the poplar, pine, and oak timber thereon, "together with the right of ingress and egress to and from said lands for the purpose of hauling said timber for the full period of 12 years." It is further averred in the answer that complainant bases his claim to the land upon an instrument purporting to be a deed executed by the said Nash and wife to William M. Phillips; that at the time of the execution and delivery of the said instrument to Phillips he knew that the said Nash had previously sold to respondent said timber; and it is charged that whatever title or interest the complainant has in the said land was acquired from the said Phillips after the execution, delivery, and recording of the said Nash's deed to respondent to the timber, and that when complainant purchased an interest in the land he did so with full knowledge and notice of respondent's claim and title to the timber thereon. Respondent further admitted that said land is "principally valuable for its timber; *** that he had cut and removed portions of the timber and intended to cut and remove all of the timber within the limit mentioned in said instrument"; and admitted also that he was insolvent.

By way of special defense, it is averred that on February 14, 1907, complainant took a mortgage on the lands of W.M. Phillips and wife, when theretofore, on January 12, 1907, respondent as complainant had filed his bill in chancery against said Phillips, praying that a writ of injunction issue, restraining said Phillips and his agents or servants from cutting the poplar, pine, or oak timber, or boxing the pine trees, or from removing any of the timber cut, or from interfering with respondent's rights therein, until said Johnson should have a reasonable time within which to bring an action at law to test the legal right to the said timber, and, "upon final determination of said action at law in favor of said Johnson, that the injunction be made perpetual," and that the pendency of this suit was known--actually or constructively--to Thompson when he acquired said interest in the lands from Phillips; that said cause between Johnson and Phillips was submitted for decree on the bill and on a decree pro confesso against Phillips, and final decree was rendered, perpetually enjoining Phillips from interfering with the rights of said Johnson therein.

In the instant case, respondent Johnson moved a dissolution of the injunction, on his full and complete sworn answer denying all of the material allegations of the bill; and submission was had by complainant, on his sworn bill and exhibits thereto, on the writ of injunction, and on the affidavits of Thompson, Tate, and Mr. and Mrs. Nash. The purport of said affidavits was, that the certifying officer did not acquire jurisdiction of the alleged grantees of the purported deed or lease to Johnson of date August 1, 1906--that purporting to have been executed by said Thomas N. Nash and wife to W.B. Johnson, and under which the respondent in the court below claims title to, and the right to cut and remove, the timbers. Qualls v. Qualls, 196 Ala. 524, 532, 72 So. 76.

A motion to dismiss for want of equity will be sustained only when the complainant can have no relief, after admitting all the facts apparent on the face of the bill, whether well pleaded or not. Coleman v. Butt, 130 Ala. 266, 30 So. 364. And the dissolution of an injunction will be allowed only for want of equity in the bill, or upon the denials of a verified answer. Town of Clio v. Lee, 74 So. 243. All amendable defects are regarded as amended. L. &amp N.R.R. Co. v. Bessemer, 108 Ala. 238, 18 So. 880. In the recent case of Tidwell v. Hitt Lumber Company, 73...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Lowery v. May
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 19, 1925
    ... ... [104 So. 7] ... Harry ... T. Smith & Caffey, of Mobile, for appellant ... Smiths, ... Young, Leigh & Johnson, of Mobile, for appellee ... THOMAS, ... The ... appeal is from the rulings on demurrer of defendant, Lowery, ... to the bill ... v. Manchester Sawmills, 209 Ala. 446, 96 So. 417; ... Manchester Sawmills v. Jasper Land Co., 211 Ala ... 511, 101 So. 47; Thompson v. Johnson, 201 Ala. 315, ... 78 So. 91; Woodstock Operating Corp. v. Quinn, 201 ... Ala. 681, 79 So. 253; Irwin v. Shoemaker, 205 Ala ... ...
  • Federal Land Bank of New Orleans v. Ozark City Bank, 4 Div. 591.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • December 17, 1931
    ...the rule by Chancellor Kent in Cook v. Mancius, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 89 (L. Ed. p. 1019), and our cases are collected in Thompson v. Johnson, 201 Ala. 315, 78 So. 91. And may say, the lis pendens rule at common law (2 Lord Bacon's Works, 479) was rigorous, often worked hardships, and to pre......
  • Rice v. Davidson
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 23, 1921
    ... ... title to land is determined in a pending suit (Wadsworth ... v. Goree, 96 Ala. 227, 10 So. 848; Tidwell v. Hitt Lbr ... Co., supra; Thompson v. Johnson, 201 Ala. 315, 78 ... So. 91); (6) when the damages are such as not recoverable at ... law (Hitt Lbr. Co. v. Cullman Co., 189 Ala. 13, ... ...
  • Woodstock Operating Corp. v. Quinn
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 20, 1918
    ...of pecuniary considerations, but because of his right to its uninterrupted enjoyment by himself and his family as a home. In Johnson v. Thompson, 78 So. 91, v. Hitt Lumber Company, 73 So. 486, L.R.A. 1917C, 232, and Wadsworth Lumber Co. v. Goree, 96 Ala. 227, 10 So. 848, the property was be......
  • 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