Wise v. Massee
| Citation | 196 So. 275,239 Ala. 559 |
| Decision Date | 14 May 1940 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 149. |
| Parties | WISE v. MASSEE ET AL. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Houston County; D. C. Halstead, Judge.
Bill in equity by Effie Mae Wise against J. N. Massee and H. R McClintock, to quiet title and, alternatively, to establish a disputed boundary line. From a decree sustaining a demurrer to the bill in both its aspects, complainant appeals.
Affirmed in part and in part reversed, rendered and remanded.
Roys Lewis, of Dothan, for appellant.
Tompkins & Ramsey and H. R. McClintock, all of Dothan, for appellees.
Bill to quiet title as between the complainant and respondents to certain real estate in the City of Dothan, Alabama, and, in the alternative, to establish and define a disputed boundary line between the lands of complainant and the respondent J N. Massee.
To the bill as amended, the respondents J. N. Massee and H. R McClintock filed joint demurrers.
The demurrer addressed to that feature of the bill which seeks to quiet the title to the lot in question takes the point that the description of the property is insufficient; while the demurrer to the second phase of the bill, takes the point that the averments of the bill do not show, otherwise than by a mere statement of conclusion of the pleader, that the boundary line between the said lands of complainant and respondent Massee is uncertain or disputed The demurrer further challenges the sufficiency of the bill as one to define a disputed boundary line for its failure to point out or designate the true boundary line between complainant's lands and those of respondent. There were other grounds of demurrer to the two aspects of the bill, which were so clearly without merit that we deem it unnecessary to refer to the same.
The second paragraph of the amended bill, which gives a description of the property, appears in the report of the case.
This court is committed to the proposition that, in order to meet the requirements of the statute--Section 9906 of the Code--with respect to "certainty" in the description of the lands in a bill to quiet title, the description given in the bill must be of a character sufficiently certain not only to identify the lands at the present time but always hereafter. The decrees in such cases are not intended to be presently executed, but are "to stand for all time as muniments of title."
If the decree to be rendered in this case was one to be presently executed, the description of the land would doubtless be sufficient, as it is not void for uncertainty, and could now be aided by parol.
The only two enduring landmarks employed in the description of the property are the section line between Sections 23 and 24, in Township 3, Range 26, Houston County, Alabama, on the south, and Dusy Street on the west. The other boundaries given fall far short of that "certain, continuous identification of the property which is necessary" in actions to quiet title. Inge et al. v. Demouy, 122 Ala. 169, 25 So. 228, 229; Ward v. Janney & Cheney, 104 Ala. 122, 16 So. 73; Code, § 9906.
The demurrer to the bill in its first aspect, viz., to quiet title which challenges the sufficiency of the description of the property was, therefore, properly sustained.
We are of the opinion, however, that the demurrer to the bill in its second aspect was not well taken and should have been overruled.
In reaching this conclusion we have not overlooked the case of Karter v. East et al., 220 Ala. 511, 125 So. 655, and authorities there cited. The Karter case as well as the cases cited dealt with descriptions in the conveyances and not with the sufficiency of the averments of the bill to quiet the title.
The bill in its last, or alternate aspect, follows the language of the statute, Subsection 5, Section 6465 of the Code, in its averment that the boundary line between the lands of complainant and the respondent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitehurst v. Kilpatrick, 4 Div. 915
...376; Steele v. McCurdy, 258 Ala. 558, 559, 560, 63 So.2d 704; Winbourne v. Russell, 255 Ala. 158, 159, 50 So.2d 721; Wise v. Massee, 239 Ala. 559, 561-562, 196 So. 275. From Ballard v. W. T. Smith Lumber Co., supra [258 Ala. 436, 63 So.2d 377], it is said: 'There can be no question of the j......
-
Comer v. Limbaugh
...a mere statement of a legal conclusion, but is a statement of an issuable and traversable fact. Code, Title 13, § 129(5); Wise v. Massee, 239 Ala. 559, 196 So. 275. Where the purpose of a bill to establish and define a disputed boundary line seeks the aid of the court of equity to establish......
-
Wynne v. Hall
...256 Ala. 349, 54 So.2d 611; Winbourne v. Russell, 255 Ala. 158, 50 So.2d 721; Ford v. Beam, 241 Ala. 340, 2 So.2d 411; Wise v. Massee, 239 Ala. 559, 196 So. 275; Smith v. Cook, 220 Ala. 338, 124 So. In the case of Irwin Fishing & Hunting Club v. Cobb, 235 Ala. 394, 179 So. 183, 184, which i......
-
Ballard v. W.T. Smith Lumber Co., 3 Div. 642
...surveyor from which he would have no difficulty in determining and marking the location of the line between the parties. Wise v. Massee, 239 Ala. 559, 196 So. 275; Winbourne v. Russell, 255 Ala. 158, 50 So.2d Objection is made that the bill of complaint is multifarious. We cannot agree with......