27 So. 2d 629 | Ala. | 1946
Statutory ejectment against defendant, Ed Wetzel. From an adverse judgment he has appealed.
Introduction of the conveyance to the plaintiffs from their grantor in possession made a prima facie case, in the absence of a showing by the defendant of his possession of the land prior to the deed to the plaintiffs. Blair v. Blair,
The defendant could defeat recovery only by legal defenses which would override the case made by the plaintiffs. Blair v. Blair, supra. This he failed to do. He claimed to be possessed of certain deeds to the land which would establish his superior title, but did not produce them on trial and his entire testimony on this issue rested solely in hearsay and was properly excluded by the trial court.
He did request a postponement of the proceedings for an opportunity to produce the documents if they could be found, but the court denied this request. This was the court's discretion (Ala.Dig., Trial, 26; Id., Appeal and Error, 948) and, in this instance, that discretion appears to have been soundly exercised.
The documents appended to the transcript purporting to disclose the devolution of the defendant's title were not before the trial court and cannot be considered on review. Hearings on appeal proceed on the recorded evidence and pleadings obtaining in the lower tribunal and the parties are not permitted to supplement the transcript with evidence not introduced on trial. Anderson v. State.
The plaintiffs also recovered $200 damages for detention. The statute authorizes recovery for "mesne profits" and the evidence warranted the verdict returned. Code 1940, Tit. 7, § 938; Wiggins v. Stewart Bros.,
Defendant makes some sort of contention, if we have understood his argument, against this award of damages. His argument seems to be predicated on the rule discussed in Clifton v. Curry,
We find nothing to justify disturbing the findings on trial and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
GARDNER, C. J., and BROWN and LIVINGSTON, JJ., concur. *384
