Haywood v. Hollingsworth

17 Citing cases

  1. Watson v. Price

    356 So. 2d 625 (Ala. 1978)   Cited 17 times

    We shall not try to distinguish these cases fully from our holding in the instant case, but at least one point of dissimilarity will be noted. "In Haywood v. Hollingsworth, 255 Ala. 453, 51 So.2d 674, which appellant states `is clearly decisive of the issues involved in this appeal.' the only evidence supporting any claim of adverse possession was inadmissible and could not be considered. Similarly, in Mims v. Alabama Power Co., 262 Ala. 121, 77 So.2d 648, the evidence fell `far short of that required to prove adverse possession.' Also in Lay v. Phillips, 276 Ala. 273, 161 So.2d 477, we said: `The appellant therefore failed to establish by proof of the required degree his right by adverse possession to the land involved in the disputed strip.

  2. Graham v. Hawkins

    281 Ala. 288 (Ala. 1967)   Cited 19 times
    Stating that "appellant and his predecessors in title have had paper title to the triangular strip which is the subject of this controversy, but appellees and their predecessors have had it fenced as part of their yard and claimed it for thirty-seven years"

    Roy D. McCord and Inzer, Martin, Suttle Inzer, Gadsden, for appellant. Where a deed describes property by lot number, as shown on map of subdivision of the city, description would not embody any accretion or enlargement to such lot by adverse possession or estoppel, acquired by grantor during his ownership, Haywood v. Hollingsworth, 255 Ala. 453, 51 So.2d 674; Mims v. Ala. Power Co., 262 Ala. 121, 77 So.2d 648. Grantor, whose deed conveyed only land in specified section and did not describe land otherwise, did not convey interest in disputed strip which lay east of section line, and grantor's interest therein, if any, could not be tacked to that of grantee to make out the required prescriptive period. Lay v. Phillips, 276 Ala. 273, 161 So.2d 477. Where grantor acquires title to disputed strip by adverse possession, and grantee has not had adverse possession of strip for requisite period, the disputed strip must be within the description in the deed to grantee claiming ownership of strip in boundary dispute with adjacent owner.

  3. Davenport v. O'Neal

    119 So. 2d 226 (Ala. 1960)   Cited 1 times

    pposed, as to any transaction with, or statement by, the deceased person whose estate is interested in the result of the suit or proceedings, or when such deceased person, at the time of such transaction or statement, acted in any representative or fiduciary relation whatsoever to the party against whom such testimony is sought to be introduced. Code 1940, Tit. 7, § 433; Miller v. Cannon et al., 84 Ala. 59, 4 So. 204; Boykin v. Smith, 65 Ala. 294; Gamble v. Whitehead, 94 Ala. 335, 11 So. 293; Dismukes v. Tolson, 67 Ala. 386; Hodges et al. v. Denny, 86 Ala. 226, 5 So. 492; Jernigan v. Gibbs, 206 Ala. 93, 89 So. 196. A transfer of the subject matter of the suit by a person who is an incompetent witness does not operate to make the person a competent witness. Code 1940, Tit. 7, § 433; Hodges v. Denny, supra; Boykin v. Smith, supra; Niehuss v. Ford, 251 Ala. 529, 38 So.2d 484; Jernigan v. Gibbs, supra; Wisdom v. Reeves, 110 Ala. 418, 18 So. 13; Moore v. Williams, 129 Ala. 329, 29 So. 795; Haywood v. Hollingsworth, 255 Ala. 453, 51 So.2d 674; Moore v. Walker, 124 Ala. 199, 26 So. 984; Barnes v. White, 195 Ala. 588, 71 So. 114. The running of adverse possession for the prescriptive period, or the statute of limitations of ten years, within the rules that obtain, defeats previously existing record title to the contrary, and thereafter a conveyance by the holder of the apparent record title is ineffectual to convey title as against adverse possession and title so acquired. McInerny v. Irvin, 90 Ala. 275, 7 So. 841; Normant v. Eureka Co., 98 Ala. 181, 12 So. 454; Baker v. Heirs of Chastang, 18 Ala. 417; Sisson v. Swift, 243 Ala. 289, 9 So.2d 891; Jackson v. Stephens, 251 Ala. 559, 39 So.2d 226. When title has become vested by adverse possession or prescription, nothing short of a grant by the titleholder or adverse possession by the opposing claimant for the statutory period can defeat the title thus acquired.

  4. O'Rear v. Conway

    83 So. 2d 65 (Ala. 1955)   Cited 13 times

    In government surveys, when the corners of subdivisions of fractional sections are not fixed, but the section corners are, the corners of quarter sections are to be placed equidistant from the section corners on the same line. Walters v. Commons, 2 Port. 38; Nolen v. Palmer, 24 Ala. 391. If a grantor acquires title to a disputed strip by adverse possession, and grantee has not had adverse possession of the strip for the requisite period, the disputed strip must be within the description in the deed to grantee claiming ownership of the strip in a boundary dispute with adjacent owner, and if the description to the disputed strip is not included in the conveyance to the grantee, then grantee acquired no right that grantor might have had to the strip. Alford v. Rodgers, 242 Ala. 370, 6 So.2d 409; Spires v. Nix, 256 Ala. 642, 57 So.2d 89; Wilson v. Cooper, 256 Ala. 184, 54 So.2d 286; Haywood v. Hollingsworth, 255 Ala. 453, 51 So.2d 674. Acts of possession and other evidence to make it adverse and which will ripen into title must be sufficient to prove that the possession has been actual, exclusive, open, notorious, hostile and continuous for a period of ten years in the party making such claim. Millican v. Mintz, 255 Ala. 569, 52 So.2d 207; Barbaree v. Flowers, 239 Ala. 510, 196 So. 111.

  5. Carlisle v. Carlisle

    70 So. 2d 263 (Ala. 1954)   Cited 4 times

    Appellee was incompetent as a witness to testify as to transactions with or statement by intestate. Code 1940, Tit. 7, § 433; Money v. Money, 237 Ala. 653, 188 So. 678; Warten v. Black, 195 Ala. 93, 70 So. 758. It is not necessary that objections be made to testimony in trial of equity suit, and court shall consider only such evidence as is relevant, material, competent and legal, and shall not consider that which is not, whether or not objections be taken. Code 1940, Tit. 7, § 372(1); Haywood v. Hollingsworth, 255 Ala. 453, 51 So.2d 674. Cope Cope, Union Springs, for appellee.

  6. Spires v. Nix

    256 Ala. 642 (Ala. 1952)   Cited 25 times

    The grantee does not acquire land outside the description in his deed. Alford v. Rogers, 242 Ala. 370, 6 So.2d 409; Haywood v. Hollingsworth, 255 Ala. 453, 51 So.2d 674; Brown v. Powers, 167 Ala. 518, 52 So. 647; Wilson v. Cooper, ante, p. 184, 54 So.2d 286. Archie I. Grubb, Eufaula, for appellee.

  7. Westcott v. Sharp

    54 So. 2d 758 (Ala. 1951)   Cited 14 times
    In Westcott v. Sharp, 50 N.J.L. 392 (at p. 395), it is held: "The right to waive the tort and bring an action for money had and received where the defendant has obtained the plaintiff's money by fraud or false color or pretense, is settled. * * * There must be privity of contract, express or implied. * * * This privity may be implied from the fraudulent appropriation of another's money."

    54 Am.Jur. 45; 7 Am.Jur. 306; Moore v. Campbell, supra. Parties in interest are incompetent to testify as to transactions with or statements by decedent. Dunn v. Martin, 230 Ala. 684, 163 So. 323; Haywood v. Hollingsworth, 255 Ala. 453. 51 So.2d 674; Code 1940, Tit. 7 § 433. STAKELY, Justice.

  8. Fesperman v. Grier

    313 So. 2d 525 (Ala. 1975)   Cited 2 times

    Whatever result might obtain if the record title were here in issue, we accept as correct and applicable the principle of easements set out in 28 C.J.S. Easements § 46: For the evidentiary effect that the failure to include in the deed by specific description any accretion allegedly acquired by adverse possession may have on the issue whether title was so acquired, see Dixon Lumber Co. v. Mathison, 289 Ala. 229, 266 So.2d 841 (1972); Machen v. Wilder, 283 Ala. 205, 215 So.2d 282 (1968); Haywood v. Hollingsworth, 255 Ala. 453, 51 So.2d 674 (1951). "Easements appurtenant to land may be conveyed with a conveyance of the land.

  9. Daniel v. Haggins

    240 So. 2d 660 (Ala. 1970)   Cited 6 times

    Sachs v. Sachs, 278 Ala. 464, 179 So.2d 46; Manchuria S. S. Co. v. Harry G. G. Donald and Co., 200 Ala. 638, 77 So. 12. When evidence is taken ore tenus in an equity case before the trial judge, neither he, nor the Appellate Court on appeal, may consider incompetent and immaterial evidence in reaching a decision. Code of Alabama 1940 (as Amended), Title 7, Section 372 (1); Taylor v. First Natl. Bank of Tuskaloosa, 279 Ala. 624, 189 So.2d 141; Haywood v. Hollingsworth, 255 Ala. 453, 51 So.2d 674. It is only when a party resorts to a court of equity to enforce a right growing out of a contract which is fraudulent and void and as to which the parties are in pari delicto, (that) the court will deny relief when the fraud is discovered from the evidence, whether specially pleaded or not. Baird v. Howison, 154 Ala. 359, 368, 45 So. 668, app. dis. 223 U.S. 712, 32 S.Ct. 520, 56 L.Ed. 625. William C. Hare and H. N. Segrest, Tuskegee, for appellees and intervenor.

  10. Machen v. Wilder

    283 Ala. 205 (Ala. 1968)   Cited 16 times

    St. Clair Springs Hotel Co. v. Balcomb, 215 Ala. 12, 108 So. 858; Merchants Natl. Bank v. Hall, supra. Grantor, whose deed conveys only land by specified lot and block number according to a recorded plat, does not convey interest in disputed strip which lay east of specified lot line, and grantor's interest therein, if any, could not be tacked to that of grantee to make out the required prescriptive period. Lay v. Phillips, 276 Ala. 273, 161 So.2d 477; Haywood v. Hollingsworth, 255 Ala. 453, 51 So.2d 674; Wilson v. Cooper, 256 Ala. 184, 54 So.2d 286. Lusk, Swann, Burns Stivender, Gadsden, for appellees.