Vines v. Sligh, 6 Div. 530.

• Decision Date: 10 April 1930
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 530.
• Parties: VINES v. SLIGH.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

128 So. 143

221 Ala. 181

VINES v. SLIGH.

6 Div. 530.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 10, 1930

Rehearing Denied May 15, 1930.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Gardner Goodwyn, Judge.

Bill to establish a disputed boundary line by J. W. Vines against H A. Sligh. From a decree for respondent, complainant appeals.

Reversed and rendered.

C. L Odell, of Bessemer, for appellant.

McEniry & McEniry, of Bessemer, for appellee.

GARDNER J.

The bill was filed under the equity jurisdiction to establish and define uncertain or disputed boundary lines. Sections 6465, 6439, 6440, Code 1923; Smith v. Cook (Ala. Sup.) 124 So. 898; Yauger v. Taylor, 218 Ala. 235, 118 So 271; Jenkins v. Raulston, 214 Ala. 443, 108 So. 47; Camp v. Dunnavent, 215 Ala. 78, 109 So. 362.

Complainant and respondent each owned five acres, more or less, which adjoined, separated by a fence which inclosed respondent's land. Respondent insisted this fence was the eastern boundary line of his property, as it had stood in its present location and been recognized by the respective owners of these two tracts of land as such boundary for more than thirty-five years. Smith v. Cook, supra.

Complainant contended that the fence of recent years had been moved, and that as the fence now stood, respondent encroached, according to a correct survey, upon his property fifty-six feet on the north and seventy feet on the south side.

The chancellor determined this issue of fact in respondent's favor, and established by his decree the fence as the true boundary line, from which decree complainant appeals.

But we find a question presented, preliminary to the determination of this issue of fact, which is decisive of this appeal. The averments of the bill suffice to show the parties to the suit were adjoining proprietors, or coterminous owners. The above-noted statutes and decisions show that this primary fact is assumed as the basis for the exercise of this equity jurisdiction over uncertain or disputed boundary lines. This is so self-evident that no further discussion thereof is deemed necessary. Respondent, in this answer, denies this basic fact and avers that complainant had sold to one Bigsbee the lands immediately adjacent to his own, and that complainant's land did not adjoin those of respondent. Coming to the proof, we find that ten days before filing the bill in this cause complainant had conveyed to said Bigsbee lands to the south and east of that of respondent; that on the east being a strip of land adjoining the respondent's fence and continuing the entire distance along the line of said fence claimed by respondent as the eastern boundary line of his property. True the deed to Bigsbee makes no reference in the description to respondent's tract, but the evidence is without dispute that as so described it conveys the strip of land to the east as above noted. Indeed, the testimony of the civil engineer who made the survey for complainant discloses that, "Bigsbee lives just east of that fence, his house is between Mr. Sligh's ground and Mr. Vines' tract on which his house is located." The map of the property, testified as correct by the engineer also...