Donohoo v. Smith, 92 So. 455

Donohoo v. Smith

92 So. 455 | Ala. | 1922

Lead Opinion

This bill was filed under section 5443 of the Code of 1907, to quiet title to certain land therein described. It has been repeatedly held by this court *297 that, in order to maintain such a bill, the complainant must have at the time of filing same the peaceable possession, actual or constructive, as distinguished from what is termed a scrambling possession — that is, one which is disputed or contested. Cen. of Ga. R. R. v. Rouse, 176 Ala. 138, 57 So. 706, and cases there cited. There was evidence in this case showing that the complainant's possession was disputed, and that one of the respondents had previously acquired possession through the attornment of the tenant in possession, and as the evidence was ore tenus, or partly so, the conclusion of the trial court is like unto the verdict of a jury. Senior v. State, 205 Ala. 337, 87 So. 592; Ray v. Watkins, 203 Ala. 683,85 So. 25. The decree of the circuit court must for this reason, if not other reasons, be affirmed.

Affirmed.

McCLELLAN, SOMERVILLE, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

On Rehearing.

Addendum

In the consideration of this case we were not unmindful of the doctrine as declared in the case of Brown v. French,159 Ala. 645, 49 So. 255, as to the duty owing the landlord by his tenant and of the fact that the former, while such, is estopped from attorning to a stranger, etc., notwithstanding said Brown Case involved an action of forcible entry, and not a bill to quiet title. In this kind of case, however, it is not a question of whether the appellee's possession was valid or whether or not the claim to same was meritorious; for, if the complainant's possession was, at the time the bill was filed, a disputed or scrambling one, he could not maintain said bill. The evidence showed that the complainant's possession, whether rightfully so or not, was questioned or disputed by one of the respondents, and not so peaceable and quiet as to authorize the maintenance of the present bill.

The application for rehearing must be overruled.

McCLELLAN, SOMERVILLE, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.