85 So. 386 | Ala. | 1920
Lead Opinion
The defendant's demurrer to the original bill being overruled, he appeals to review that action of the court. The original bill, in paragraphs 1 and 2, would avail of the statutory system for the quieting in equity of the title, etc., to land. Code, § 5443 et seq. Averments presenting this feature of complainant's claim for relief were sufficient to justify the court in refusing to sustain the general demurrer, asserting the want of equity in the bill. Moore v. Alton,
What is called in the brief the "special demurrer," addressed to the bill as a whole, contained these grounds only:
"(2) That said bill shows that the complainant has a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law in an action of ejectment.
"(3) That said bill shows that the complainant has a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law in an action of trespass.
"(4) That said bill shows that its purpose is to settle a disputed boundary line, and that equity has no jurisdiction of said suit, but that his remedy is at law."
Since the demurrer is addressed to the bill as a whole, error cannot be imputed to the court in overruling the demurrer, the bill possessing equity in respect of its invocation of the statutory system for quieting titles to land, etc. Code, § 5443 et seq.; 5 Mich. Ala. Dig. p. 565, p. 172, noting many decisions applicable here. Furthermore, under subdivision 5 of Code, § 3052, our courts of equity have original jurisdiction to compose disputes over boundary lines. Billups v. Gilbert,
The decree is affirmed.
Affirmed.
ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Addendum
Two propositions are pressed in opposition to the correctness of the original opinion. It is first insisted that the bill is not sufficient as a bill to quiet title, under Code, § 5443, for that "peaceable possession," on the part of the complainant (appellee), within the purview of section 5443, is not averred in the bill. It is expressly averred in paragraph ten of the bill that the complainant "is in peaceable possession of the" land described in the bill. While paragraph 4 of the bill alleges wrongful acts affecting the purity of the water from the spring on the land, it does not, by implication or otherwise, aver possession or any act of possession on the part of the respondent or of his representative or agent. To construe the paragraph otherwise would involve the interpolation, without warrant, of wholly independent allegations — a process that is not sanctioned in this jurisdiction. Furthermore, as pointed out in the original opinion, the demurrer was to the bill "as a whole"; and there was no ground questioning the sufficiency of the bill in the aspect seeking relief under the statutory system for quieting titles. Code, § 5443 et seq.
The other insistence in the application is likewise unsound. The third paragraph of the bill avers explicitly that there is a dispute as to the boundary line between the adjacent lands owned by the parties. There is no ground of demurrer testing the sufficiency of this averment, under Code, § 3052, subdiv. 5. No question of the title to land is projected by any averment in the bill or any implication therefrom.
The application for rehearing is overruled.
ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
