ms, 61 Ala. 108, 114; Doolittle v. Robertson, 109 Ala. 412, 19 So. 851; Cobbs v. Union Naval Stores Co., 202 Ala. 333, 80 So. 415; Nance v. Walker, 199 Ala. 218, 74 So. 339; State v. Mobile O. R. Co., 201 Ala. 271, 78 So. 47. Appellees being in unquestioned adverse possession under the calls in the deed of conveyance, portions of the land conveyed under the Sissons deed to Tanner Millen, their possession flowed over all of the lands described in the deed. Ryan v. Kilpatrick, 66 Ala. 332; Tennessee, C., I. . R. Co. v. Linn, 123 Ala. 112, 136, 26 So. 245, 82 Am.St.Rep. 108; McMillan v. Aiken, 182 Ala. 303, 62 So. 519; 2 C.J. 235-242; Marietta Fertilizer Co. v. Blair, 173 Ala. 524, 56 So. 131; Wells v. American Mortg. Co., 109 Ala. 430, 20 So. 136; Harper v. Rudd, 89 Ala. 371, 7 So. 646. The legal title and the equitable title under the trust deed from Williams to Singletary merged in said Singletary and the title to the property conveyed descended by inheritance to Singletary's heirs. Huggins v. Whitaker, 100 Fla. 600, 129 So. 857; Montgomery v. Carlton, 99 Fla. 152, 126 So. 135; 22 R.C.L. 1186; Ex parte Jonas, 186 Ala. 567, 577, 64 So. 960; Welsh v. Phillips, 54 Ala. 309, 25 Am.Rep. 679; Otis v. McMillan, 70 Ala. 46. The tax deed executed by the probate judge to Dowty under which appellants claim is void. Rivers v. Thompson, 43 Ala. 633, 641; Stoudenmire v. Brown, 48 Ala. 699; Id., 57 Ala. 481; Lewis v. Burch, 215 Ala. 20, 108 So. 854; 61 C.J. 1342, 647. The sheriff's deed to Dowty, under which appellants claim, is null and void. Lewis v. Goguette, 3 Stew. P. 184; Baucum Jenkins v. George, 65 Ala. 259; Reddick v. Long, 124 Ala. 260, 264, 27 So. 402; Rev. Code 1867, §§ 2829, 2830, 2861, 2875; McCoy v. Watson, 51 Ala. 466, 469; Collier's Adm'r v. Windham, 27 Ala. 291, 62 Am.Dec. 767; Whitlock's Adm'r v. Whitlock's Creditors, 25 Ala. 543; Fryer v. Dennis, 3 Ala. 254; 47 C.J. 1097; Powers v. Robinson, 90 Ala. 225, 8 So. 10, 11; Chapman v. Lee's Adm'r, 47 Ala. 143; Smith v. Smith, 153 Ala. 504, 45 So. 168; Turk

The same person cannot be at the same time trustee and beneficiary of the same identical interest. Axtell v. Coon, 82 Fla. 158, 89 So.2d 419; Wiley v. Hoggson, 90 Fla. 343, 106 So. 408; Reed v. Barry, 93 Fla. 849, 112 So.2d 846; Walker v. Close, 98 Fla. 1103, 125 So.2d 521; Montgomery v. Carlton, 99 Fla. 152, 126 So.2d 135; Huggins v. Whitaker, 100 Fla. 600, 129 So.2d 857. This rule is subject to some exceptions, and under some circumstances one may be trustee for himself and others.

The doctrine has been applied in Florida in the context of notes and mortgages for over a hundred years. See Jackson v. Parker, 153 Fla. 622, 15 So.2d 451, 459 (1943); Webster v. 759 Riverside Ave., Inc., 113 Fla. 8, 151 So. 276, 278-79 (1933); Oates v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 107 Fla. 224, 144 So. 418, 421 (1932); Huggins v. Whitaker, 100 Fla. 600, 129 So. 857, 858 (1930); Graham v. Fitts, 53 Fla. 1046, 43 So. 512, 513-14 (1907); Sardon Found, v. New Horizons Serv. Dogs, Inc., 852 So.2d 416, 420 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Mellor v. Goldberg, 658 So.2d 1162, 1164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Collins v. Citrus Nat'l Bank, 641 So.2d 458, 459 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Biersack v. Oaks Renting, Inc., 606 So.2d 439, 442 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Stockman v. Burke, 305 So.2d 89, 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Policastro v. Rudt, 180 So.2d 472, 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). "[W]here a note evidencing a debt and a mortgage to secure its payment are executed at the same time in one transaction, and the mortgage refers to the note, they should be considered together in determining their meaning and effect."