Walker v. Walker

• Decision Date: 16 December 1943
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 189.
• Citation: 16 So.2d 190,245 Ala. 154
• Parties: WALKER v. WALKER.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

16 So.2d 190

245 Ala. 154

WALKER v. WALKER.

6 Div. 189.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 16, 1943

Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1944.

Wm E. James, of Birmingham, for appellant.

H M. Abercrombie and G. J. Prosch, both of Birmingham, for appellee.

GARDNER Chief Justice.

The bill is one to quiet title to a certain five-acre tract of land situated at Fulton Springs in Jefferson County, Alabama filed by Bessie Walker, in peaceable possession of the property, against Henry L. Walker.From a decree in favor of the complainant, the defendant prosecutes this appeal.

Both parties claim from a common source-one Sidney L. Walker, who had been the husband of complainant, and who was also the brother of the defendant.The property was deeded to Sidney Walker by his mother.Complainant and Sidney Walker resided upon the property as husband and wife.There were four children of the marriage, but only one son now remains at the home place with the mother.In 1925, complainant, the wife, obtained a divorce from Sidney, the husband, and was awarded alimony in the sum of $60 per month.The alimony was paid from the time of the divorce until the year 1928, when the husband ceased to make payments.In 1932, he returned to his divorced wife, and they began living together as they did before the divorce was granted.At that time the husband was in arrears $2,500 in alimony.

They thus lived together until February 1940, when he informed complainant that he would again abandon her.The question then came up as to her support, and her testimony is to the effect (supported by that of her son) that it was agreed between them, in consideration of her release of any claim for the alimony in arrears, he would convey to her the tract of land here in dispute; and that in furtherance of this agreement he procured from his trunk the original deed from his mother to him conveying this property, and delivered it to her with that understanding; that she should remain in possession and occupy the property as her own.The husband then abandoned the premises, left the wife in exclusive possession, and she has made no subsequent demand for any alimony in arrears.She has since assessed the property for taxation in her own name, paid the taxes thereon, as well as a claim on the property for improvements on the roof.

In March, 1941, while in the State of Florida, he appears to have executed a deed to James Robert Smith, his sister's husband, purporting to convey the property here involved, and in June thereafter James Robert Smith and wife conveyed the same property to the defendant, Henry L. Walker.Defendant Walker lived on premises adjoining this property, and the Smiths lived only a block or two away.

It thus appears that the defendant claims the property by virtue of the legal title thus acquired, while the complainant's claim rests upon a perfect equity in the sale of the property to her for a valuable consideration and her continued exclusive adverse possession since that time.There was some sharp conflict in the testimony heard orally before the court.The chancellor accepted complainant's view of the case and reached the conclusion the defendant, as well as the Smiths, had sufficient notice of complainant's claim, or notice of facts to place them on inquiry, so as to preclude them from being protected as bona fide purchasers.

The evidence has been read with much care, and to discuss it in detail would extend this opinion to undue length and serve no useful purpose.So far as the law of the case is concerned it is clear enough that the release of the...