Wilson v. Dorman

• Decision Date: 15 September 1960
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 404
• Citation: 271 Ala. 280,123 So.2d 112
• Parties: W. M. WILSON et al. v. Fannie DORMAN et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 112

123 So.2d 112

271 Ala. 280

W. M. WILSON et al. v. Fannie DORMAN et al.

6 Div. 404.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Sept. 15, 1960.

Graham, Bibb, Wingo & Foster, Birmingham, for appellants.

Ben F. Ray, Birmingham, for appellees.

SIMPSON, Justice.

Complainants, appellants, filed a bill in November, 1949 to quiet title in complainants to 40 acres of wild land described in the complaint. After testimony was heard ore tenus, and upon final submission, the trial court entered a decree dismissing the bill. From this decree complainants bring this appeal.

Factually, the situation seems to be:

Suit was filed against Charles M. Dorman by W. M. Wilson and W. A. Brown, partners trading as Wilson-Brown Company, for the collection of a debt on March 14, 1932. Judgment was obtained in the amount of $284 by these plaintiffs against Dorman on June 3, 1932. On June 27, 1932, execution on this judgment was issued directing the Sheriff of Jefferson County to levy upon the lands, goods and chattels of the said Dorman. On August 29, 1932 a Sheriff's sale was had pursuant to said execution and the plaintiffs became the purchasers of the lands by the Sheriff's deed which was executed on September 1, 1932, and described the following lands:

'SE 1/4 of NW 1/4 (SR) Section 7, Tp. 15, Range 1. The SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 (SR) Section 7, TP 15, Range 1. Begin at the SW corner of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4, run East 500 feet, more or less, thence West along the center of the Public road 500 feet, thence South 500 feet, more or less, to the beginning, being all of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 lying South and West of the Public road, containing three acres, more or less, (SR) Situated Section 7, Tp 17, Range 1, All in Jefferson County, Alabama. (Complainant's Exhibit 10, Tr. p. 88.)'

This deed was recorded.

Subsequently, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County issued execution to the Sheriff commanding him to levy upon the lands, goods and chattels of the said Dorman. Thereupon another sale was had, after proper advertisement of the same, and the plaintiffs again became purchasers by a second Sheriff's deed of the following described lands:

'S. W. 1/4 of the S. W 1/4 Section 7, Township 15 South, Range 1 West, surface rights only. All situated in Jefferson County, Alabama.'

After the original law suit was filed against the said Charles M. Dorman for the collection of the debt, and on April 29, 1932, the said Charles M. Dorman executed a deed to his wife reciting consideration of $100, and purporting to convey the following lands:

'The South West quarter of the South West quarter of sec Seven Township fifteen south, Range One West (SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 Sec. 7 Tp. 15 SR.1W.) subject however to right of way heretofore granted to the Birmingham Mineral Railroad Co as per deed of the Ala State land Company, No. 1954.'

Thereafter on January 30, 1946, Charles M. Dorman joined his wife in a conveyance to their son Oscar W. Dorman, of the land previously conveyed by Charles M. Dorman to his wife, Fannie Dorman. This is the suit property.

Charles M. Dorman died in November, 1947. The bill to quiet title in the complainants was filed some two years later.

While there are several contentions made by each of the parties, it is unnecessary to consider them separately. As pointed out above, there was a disparity in the descriptions contained in the two Sheriff's deeds (and it is doubtful that the levy would support the second deed). The first deed attempts apparently to convey three separate parcels of land. The bill of complaint, however, describes only one forty-acre tract. In the view we take, however, this disparity is insignificant to a decision of the case.

The evidence of the complainants tends to show that after the execution of the Sheriff's deeds to them, that they posted the lands with no trespass signs (just when is not shown) and at one time had the same surveyed (when is not shown). The respondents say they knew nothing about this. There is one tax receipt showing that taxes were paid by the complainants in the year 1932 at least, and they testified they had paid others. On the other hand, the respondents put in evidence tax receipts for all of the years commencing in 1931 through 1952 with the exception of the years 1932, 1938, 1939, and 1952. As we see it, the trial judge committed no error in dismissing the bill for the following reason: It is...