87 So. 351 | Ala. | 1920
The suit was ejectment for the recovery of 79/80 undivided interest in lands. When the evidence was concluded, the court gave the general affirmative charge at defendant's request in writing, for reasons stated. The general rule in ejectment is that plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own, and not the weakness of the title of his adversary. Mahan v. Smith,
The evidence was that the patent to the land was duly issued; that Jane Hayes went into possession of the same and had continuously lived thereon since 1890, claiming it as her own, continually paying taxes on it and had a "deed to it"; and that this possession and claim of ownership extended to the date of the trial. It was competent for Jane Hayes to testify to the collective fact of her possession for 30 years, the continuous listing of the lands for taxes, and *106
payment of the same. McMillan v. Aiken, ante, p. 35,
The possession of land under claim of right or ownership, distinct from, and hostile to, the title of the true owner, is adverse possession, neither claim of the real title in good faith nor color of title being essential; and such actual possession, being a patent fact, furnishes evidence of its own existence, and is the equivalent of actual notice of the claim under which it is held. Murray v. Hoyle,
Nor is the case changed by the rule that by statute the property and possession of a grantor pass as fully by his conveyance "as if seizin had been formally delivered" (Code, § 3364; Chandler v. Pope,
No reversible error intervened on the trial; the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELLAN and SOMERVILLE, JJ., concur.