Dora Fuel Co. v. Cordova Coal & Mining Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Dora Fuel Co. v. Cordova Coal & Mining Co.

89 So. 41, 205 Ala. 688, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 599

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMay 12, 1921

Docket6 Div. 275.

StatusPublished

This text of 89 So. 41 (Dora Fuel Co. v. Cordova Coal & Mining Co.) 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

Dora Fuel Co. v. Cordova Coal & Mining Co., 89 So. 41, 205 Ala. 688, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 599 (Ala. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

SAYRE, J.

Appellee filed this bill to quiet title under chapter 127 of the Code of 1907. Appellants’ demurrer was overruled.

[1] Appellee followed the language o'f the statute (section 5443, the first section of chapter 127) in describing its interest in the land. The averment is that—

“Complainant is in the peaceable possession of, claiming to own in its own right, the fol *689 lowing described interest in lands, * * * to wit: All the coal in, under, and throughout the northwest quarter,” etc.

Against appellants’ demurrer, complaining that “it does not sufficiently appear what interest in the property described in the bill the complainant claims,” this averment was proof.

[2] Nor were other grounds of demurrer well taken. There is no misjoinder of parties defendant apparent on the face of the bill. White v. Cotner, 170 Ala. 324, 54 South. 114. To the case made by the bill the decisions in Southern Steel Co. v. Hopkins, 174 Ala. 465, 57 South. 11, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 464, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 692, Roanoke Guano Co. v. Saunders, 173 Ala. 347, 56 South. 198, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 491, and Turner v. Mobile, 135 Ala. 73, 33 South. 132, all eases dealing with the question of the jurisdiction of equity to prevent a multiplicity of suits, are inapt.

There is no error.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and MILLER, JJ., concur.

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

SAYRE, J.

Appellee filed this bill to quiet title under chapter 127 of the Code of 1907. Appellants’ demurrer was overruled.

[1] Appellee followed the language o'f the statute (section 5443, the first section of chapter 127) in describing its interest in the land. The averment is that—

“Complainant is in the peaceable possession of, claiming to own in its own right, the fol *689 lowing described interest in lands, * * * to wit: All the coal in, under, and throughout the northwest quarter,” etc.

Against appellants’ demurrer, complaining that “it does not sufficiently appear what interest in the property described in the bill the complainant claims,” this averment was proof.

[2] Nor were other grounds of demurrer well taken. There is no misjoinder of parties defendant apparent on the face of the bill. White v. Cotner, 170 Ala. 324, 54 South. 114. To the case made by the bill the decisions in Southern Steel Co. v. Hopkins, 174 Ala. 465, 57 South. 11, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 464, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 692, Roanoke Guano Co. v. Saunders, 173 Ala. 347, 56 South. 198, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 491, and Turner v. Mobile, 135 Ala. 73, 33 South. 132, all eases dealing with the question of the jurisdiction of equity to prevent a multiplicity of suits, are inapt.

There is no error.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and MILLER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 So. 41, 205 Ala. 688, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dora-fuel-co-v-cordova-coal-mining-co-ala-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack