Home/Supreme Court of Alabama/Drummond v. Franck

Drummond v. Franck

41 So. 2d 268, 252 Ala. 474, 1949 Ala. LEXIS 462
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedMay 19, 1949
Docket1 Div. 322.
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 41 So. 2d 268 (Drummond v. Franck) 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
Drummond v. Franck, 41 So. 2d 268, 252 Ala. 474, 1949 Ala. LEXIS 462 (Ala. 1949).

Opinion

LIVINGSTON, Justice.

Complainants in the court below, appellees here, Sadie L. Franck, John S. Bullock and Mary H. Bullock, J. O. DeVaneyj Algie F. Williams, Elmore Watson and 'Bertha L. Odell, instituted this suit in the: Circuit Court, in Equity, of Mobile County, Alabama, to enjoin respondents Madison M. Drummond and Susan E. Drumrhond from further filling in a certain described and alleged alleyway, and to compel the removal of materials already placed in or upon said alleyway, and for damages caused to complainants’ property on account of the building up or filling in of said alleyway.

The cause was submitted to the trial court on evidence taken ore tenus, and resulted in a decree dismissing the suit as to Susan E. Drummond and granting the' injunctive relief prayed for as against Madison M. Drummond, and assessing against him the damage done to the property of each complainant at $500. This appeal is from that decree.

The property here involved is within the city of Mobile, Alabama, and is located within the block bounded on the north '• by Spring Hill Avenue, on the east by Herndon Avenue, on the south by Old Shell Road and on the west by Ann Street, ¡all of which streets are paved.

For a better understanding of the opinion, we here .insert a map of the property involved, the names of the respective owners indicating their holdings. The map is not drawn to scale. It will be noted that Davis, the owner of lot seven, and Alexander, the owner of lot four, and Shearer, the owner of lot one, are not involved in *476 this suit. We have indicated the property of Mr. and Mrs. Drummond by dotted lines.

In substance, the bill as amended alleges that, with the exception of Elmore Watson and Bertha L. Odell, complainants’ lots are *477 ■bounded on the west side by a private alley which has been in existence for more than twenty years; that the alley is fifteen feet wide, and that on the west and east sides of the same there is a ditch leading into a storm sewer at the south end of said alley into which surface water drains from the complainants’ land: That complainant Elmore Watson’s property is located on the west side of said alley with the east line of said property being on said alley; that surface water drains into the ditch running along said alley and into the storm sewer on Old Shell Road at the west end of the same; that complainant Bertha L. Odell’s property is located on the west side of the property owned by Elmore Watson: that respondents in obstructing the natural flow of the surface water from the property of Elmore Watson have caused the same to back up and stand upon the property of Bertha L. Odell; that respondents are the owners of certain property abutting on said alley at the extreme northern end thereof; that respondents on, towit, July 1, 1946, and for several weeks thereafter raised the surface level of said alley and filled up the ditches along the same by dumping dirt, broken plaster and other material in said alley, the effect of which has been to prevent the surface water from draining off the complainants’ land and causing the improvements thereon to become flooded from time to time as it rains, and for the surface water to stand upon the same; that on, towit, the 1st day of July, 1946, respondents cut or caused to be cut limbs from the trees of several complainants extending over said alley.

*476

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

Related

Young v. Ledford
37 So. 3d 832 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2009)
Lane v. WJ. Curry & Sons
92 S.W.3d 355 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2002)
Poarch v. Alfa Mutual Insurance
799 So. 2d 957 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2001)
Ex Parte Alfa Mut. Ins. Co.
799 So. 2d 957 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2001)
City of Dothan v. Eighty-Four West, Inc.
738 So. 2d 903 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1999)
UNION MORTG. CO., INC. v. Barlow
595 So. 2d 1335 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1992)
Harding v. Bethesda R. Cancer T. Center
551 So. 2d 299 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1989)
Barnes v. Dale
530 So. 2d 770 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1988)
Melnick v. C.S.X. Corp.
540 A.2d 1133 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1988)
Melnick v. C.S.X. Corp.
510 A.2d 592 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1986)
Cannon v. Dunn
700 P.2d 502 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1985)
Hendrix v. Creel
297 So. 2d 364 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1974)
Winter v. Cain
187 So. 2d 237 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1966)
Dekle v. Vann
182 So. 2d 885 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1966)
Burson v. Saliba
116 So. 2d 609 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1960)
Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company and American Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Southern Precision Pattern Works, Ins.
251 F.2d 537 (Fifth Circuit, 1958)
Collins v. Wickland
88 N.W.2d 83 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1958)
Kay-Noojin Development Co. v. Hackett
45 So. 2d 792 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 So. 2d 268, 252 Ala. 474, 1949 Ala. LEXIS 462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drummond-v-franck-ala-1949.