Vines v. Sligh, 6 Div. 530.

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtGARDNER, J.
Citation221 Ala. 181,128 So. 143
Docket Number6 Div. 530.
Decision Date10 April 1930
PartiesVINES v. SLIGH.

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 [128 So. 144.] 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Branyon v. Kirk, 8 Div. 917.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 5 October 1939
    ...strip. But he could not maintain this suit simply as such owner. That would be but a suit to recover the property. Vines v. Sligh, 221 Ala. 181, 128 So. 143. But a sale of the adjoining property after the suit is begun is a different question. "The rule in equity is that when a sole plainti......
  • McNeil v. Hadden, 4 Div. 737
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 18 November 1954
    ...of this kind unless complainant owns land adjoining respondent's at the disputed boundary. Vines v. Sligh, 221 Ala. Page 164 181, 128 So. 143; Branyon v. Kirk, 238 Ala. 321, 191 So. We are constrained to the conclusion that the learned trial court should have dismissed complainant's bill ra......
  • Atkins v. Cunningham, 6 Div. 798.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 2 April 1931
    ...thereof are found in Yauger v. Taylor, 218 Ala. 235, 118 So. 271; Steele v. Allen, 214 Ala. 285, 107 So. 812; Vines v. Sligh, 221 Ala. 181, 128 So. 143. It is established that in a suit in equity to determine a boundary line, the court has authority to determine all questions, including the......
3 cases
  • Branyon v. Kirk, 8 Div. 917.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 5 October 1939
    ...strip. But he could not maintain this suit simply as such owner. That would be but a suit to recover the property. Vines v. Sligh, 221 Ala. 181, 128 So. 143. But a sale of the adjoining property after the suit is begun is a different question. "The rule in equity is that when a sole plainti......
  • McNeil v. Hadden, 4 Div. 737
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 18 November 1954
    ...of this kind unless complainant owns land adjoining respondent's at the disputed boundary. Vines v. Sligh, 221 Ala. Page 164 181, 128 So. 143; Branyon v. Kirk, 238 Ala. 321, 191 So. We are constrained to the conclusion that the learned trial court should have dismissed complainant's bill ra......
  • Atkins v. Cunningham, 6 Div. 798.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 2 April 1931
    ...thereof are found in Yauger v. Taylor, 218 Ala. 235, 118 So. 271; Steele v. Allen, 214 Ala. 285, 107 So. 812; Vines v. Sligh, 221 Ala. 181, 128 So. 143. It is established that in a suit in equity to determine a boundary line, the court has authority to determine all questions, including the......

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