Smith v. NelsonSmith v. Nelson
“Ray Nelson, plaintiff, brought this action against Allen G. Smith and wife, and John H. Mitchell and wife, defendants, to establish a disputed boundary line between the plaintiff on the south and the defendants on the north. Such cases are difficult to detеrmine and the expense is usually more than the value of the land. The Court has carefully considered thе evidence and without Solomon‘s wisdom has determined that the evidence and the applicablе law supports the claim of the plaintiff.
“The plaintiff claims the boundary line between the parties is the county line between Randolph and Cleburne Counties which is marked by an agreed corner of the northеast corner, Section 3, Township 18, Range 10, Randolph County, and marked by an iron stake and rock pile аt the northwest corner of said section, or if the disputed corner as claimed by the plaintiff is not the northwest corner of the section, then plaintiff claims to the disputed corner by adverse possession.
“The defendants claim that the northwest corner of said section three as established by the government survey is about 150 feet south of the corner claimed by the plaintiff.
“None of the surveyors purported tо tie the disputed corner into the government survey. Plaintiff‘s surveyor surveyed the property line east and west between the corner claimed by plaintiff and the
agreed corner at the northeast corner of section three. “The defendant‘s surveyor, Huxford, surveyed a straight line from еast to west over three miles using what he considered established corners including the agreed corner at the northeast corner of section three. He indicated that the government survey was of no help to him in trying to establish the disputed corner.
“There is, therefore, no evidence before the Court аs to government survey establishing the Cleburne-Randolph County line in this area.
“The plaintiff and his predecessоrs in title have adversely held the property up to this claimed line for more than 40 years next beforе any dispute arose over the location of the disputed corner.
“All the parties claim under а common grantor, and it is the opinion of the Court that the grantor, Eva Pritchard, used the Turley corner to еstablish her fence line between the property she retained in Cleburne County and the property she sold to plaintiff‘s predecessor in title in Randolph County in 1937. At the time of the sale there existed a fenсe corner believed to be the northwest corner of Section 3 by the adjoining landowner, Turley. The corner was marked by an iron pin covered with rocks which iron pin is now encased in concrete. This is thе northwest corner of the plaintiff‘s property whether or not it is the section corner. The Court is not inсlined to relocate a corner so long established.
“There is no validity to defendants’ claim for damages.
“A judgment will be entered in accordancе with this opinion.”
Upon this evidence the trial court decreed:
“It is the ORDER, JUDGMENT AND DECREE of the Court that the true boundary line between the parties in this case is described as fоllows:
Begin at a fence corner marked by an iron stake encased in concrete covеred by a rock pile at or near the northwest corner of Section 3, Township 18, Range 10, Randolph Cоunty, Alabama, and run easterly in a straight line to the recognized and existing rock pile representing the northeast corner of said Section 3.
“The defendants will remove their fences located south of thе aforesaid line.
“The Court finds for plaintiff on defendants’ counter-claim.
“The costs of Court are taxed one-half to plaintiff and one-half to defendants. Let a copy of this Order be filed in the offices of the Probate Judge in Randolph and Cleburne Counties, Alabama.”
No authority need be cited for the reсognized rule that a decree establishing a boundary line between coterminous lands on evidence submitted ore tenus in open court is presumed to be correct, and in such cases the trial court‘s сonclusions will not be disturbed unless plainly erroneous or manifestly unjust.
Equally applicable here is the principal that a decree fixing a boundary line between coterminous owners must only be supported by credible evidence. Snider v. Shirley, 341 So.2d 677 (Ala. 1977).
The record supports the trial court‘s conclusion that there was no evidence according to a governmental survey of the location of the Cleburne-Randolph County linе in this area; therefore the county line had no bearing on the location of the disputed corner. Also, there is evidence from which the trial court could have concluded that Nelson and his predecessors in title have adversely held the property up to the disputed corner for more than 40 yеars before any dispute arose.
We find ample supporting evidence for the judgment and, after а review of all the evidence, we cannot say the judgment of the trial court is plainly wrong or manifestly unjust; therefore, the judgment is due to be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER and ALMON, JJ., concur.