88 So. 2d 375 | Ala. | 1956
This is an appeal by respondents from a final decree in equity reforming a certain deed therein mentioned. There was a former appeal from a decree on the cross bill, Johnson v. Green, 259 Ala. 511, 66 So.2d 768; but nothing there considered is here involved.
The deed in question was dated November 6, 1934, and was executed by all the heirs at law of A. L. Johnson, deceased, except Dock Johnson to whom the deed was executed. The land included in the
The complainants include all the grantors in the deed to Dock Johnson of November 6, 1934, or the heirs of some who have since died: this includes the heirs of Louis Johnson. The respondents are Eulus Johnson, Gerstel Johnson and Dock Johnson.
The deed of November 6, 1934, contains a general warranty clause. The person more directly interested in having the error corrected so as to eliminate the tract in question is Lonnie Green who is the successor to Louis Johnson in the ownership of it. Louis Johnson was also an heir of A. L. Johnson and executed the deed of November 6, 1934. So that, Lonnie Green has the right to maintain this suit both as a grantor in that deed and as the successor in interest of Louis Johnson who was the owner of that tract and a grantor in the deed which erroneously included it. Section 59, Title 9; section 136, Title 47, Code; Bankhead v. Jackson, 257 Ala. 131, 57 So.2d 609. But he made as parties complainant all the heirs of A. L. Johnson, deceased, and all the heirs of Louis Johnson, deceased. They are all interested because they all executed a conveyance with a general covenant of warranty of title.
It is objected that appellants as the purchasers from Dock Johnson had no notice of the error. But when they purchased Lonnie Green was in possession of the tract openly and adversely for Louis Johnson or his heirs. This without something to discredit it was sufficient notice. Long v. Long, 255 Ala. 353, 51 So.2d 533. Possession by a tenant is sufficient. Brunson v. Brooks, 68 Ala. 248(4); 92 C.J.S. Vendor & Purchaser, § 349, p. 287(2). The evidence was clear, satisfactory and convincing that the error was made and that it was mutual. There is nothing in the record which serves to prevent a reformation of the deed of November 6, 1934, as adjudged and decreed by the trial court. It should be affirmed.
The foregoing opinion was prepared by FOSTER, Supernumerary Justice of this Court, while serving on it at the request of the Chief Justice under authority of Title 13, section 32, Code, and was adopted by the Court as its opinion.
Affirmed.