| Ala. | Dec 15, 1877
The three affirmative charges given by the court, and excepted to, each and all assert, substantially, the same legal proposition. We think each mistook the law. The possession by Wallace from 1858-9 to 1862-3, the valuable improvements put on the lot by him, and his acts of ownership, raised the presumption of title in him at that time, which, in the absence of proof of outstanding title in another, would support or defend an action of ejectment. See Heydenfeldt v. Mitchell, 6 Ala. 70" court="Ala." date_filed="1844-01-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/doe-ex-dem-heydenfeldt-v-mitchell-6502107?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6502107">6 Ala. 70; Badger v. Lyon, 7 Ala. 564" court="Ala." date_filed="1845-01-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/badger-v-lyon-6502460?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6502460">7 Ala. 564; McCall v. Pryor, 17 Ala. 533" court="Ala." date_filed="1850-01-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/mccall-v-doe-ex-dem-pryor-6504242?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6504242">17 Ala. 533. Hendon v. White, 52 Ala. 597" court="Ala." date_filed="1875-06-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/hendon-v-white-6509081?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6509081">52 Ala. 597, was not intended to unsettle this principle. See, also, Clarke v. Clarke, 51 Ala. 498" court="Ala." date_filed="1874-06-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/clarke-v-clarkes-administrator-6508886?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6508886">51 Ala. 498.
We have no evidence of any other possession of the land in controversy, until 1869, when the defendant went into possession, and has retained it ever since ; but he shows no title. Plaintiff, as one of the firm of Eakin & Co., claims title
Reversed and remanded.