Collier v. Alexander

138 Ala. 245
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedNovember 15, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 138 Ala. 245 (Collier v. Alexander) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Collier v. Alexander, 138 Ala. 245 (Ala. 1902).

Opinion

DOWDELL, J.

Tbe bill in this case is filed under article 13 of chapter 16 of tbe Code, authorizing tbe bills in chancery to compel the determination of claims to land and to quiet titles. Tbe respondent answered [246]*246the bill claiming title to the land, and setting forth the nature and character of her claim or title. This was in con fortuity with one requirement of section 811 of said article and chapter., which directs what the answer shall contain. Testimony was taken, and the cause was submitted for final decree on the pleadings and proof, and a decree was rendered dismissing complainant’s bill on the facts, and adjudging that the respondent had the superior title to the land.

This decree is hero assigned as error. The only insistence in argument is, that the decree is erroneous in granting the respondent affirmative relief without a' cross-bill, and in adjudging superiority of her claim or title to the land. We fail to see any force or merit in the contention. No affirmative relief was decreed. The decree determined the claim to the land, and quieted the title, in adjudging which party had the superior claim or title. This is in accordance with the requirements of the statute as to what the decree shall contain. And this was the purpose of the bill. No question is raised in argument as to the correctness of the chancellor’s finding on the evidence.

• The decree, however, in ordering a dismissal of the complainant’s bill, was irregular, and in this respect will be corrected. It is upon the bill and the answer that the decree fixing the status of the title to the property is based. The decree as corrected will be affirmed.

Since writing the foregoing opinion, counsel for appellant have filed an additional brief and argument insisting that the chancellor erred in his conclusion as to the facts. We have carefully examined the evidence in the cause, and after such examination and due consideration of the evidence, we concur in the conclusion of the chancellor.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Stokes v. Cottrell
58 So. 3d 135 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2010)
Myers v. Moorer
134 So. 2d 168 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1961)
Chestang v. Tensaw Land & Timber Company
134 So. 2d 159 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1960)
Dean v. Griffith
57 So. 2d 545 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1952)
Elsheimer v. Parker Bank & Trust Co.
185 So. 385 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1938)
City of Jasper v. Sanders
145 So. 827 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1933)
Grayson v. Muckleroy
124 So. 217 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1929)
Sloss-Sheffield S. & I. Co. v. Lollar
54 So. 272 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
138 Ala. 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collier-v-alexander-ala-1902.