Lee v. Dunn

Supreme Court of Alabama

Lee v. Dunn

89 So. 55, 205 Ala. 689, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 600

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMay 12, 1921

Docket7 Div. 180.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 89 So. 55 (Lee v. Dunn) 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

Lee v. Dunn, 89 So. 55, 205 Ala. 689, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 600 (Ala. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

GARDNER, J.

This is a bill for the establishment of a boundary line; the only averment as to this feature being found in páragraph 2, wherein it is alleged that the line between the lands of the parties is disputed by the defendant.

The bill was filed under subdivision 5 of section 3052, Code of 1907, under the theory that by virtue of this subdivision courts of equity would assume jurisdiction to establish disputed boundary lines under all circumstances, regardless of the limitations as ti> jurisdiction set up in the decisions.of this court, among them Ashurst v. McKenzie, 92 Ala. 484, 9 South. 262. Under these authorities it was well established that, in addition to a mere dispute as to the location of a confused or obliterated boundary line, there must be some ground of equitable interposition. Many of such cases are enumerated in the Ashurst Case, supra.

In the very recent case of Goodman v. Carroll, present term, 87 South. 368, 1 this court has construed the above-cited subdivision as only intending to affirm in positive form the ancient jurisdiction of courts of equity, as that jurisdiction had been defined in the Ashurst Case, and elsewhere. Under this construction, therefore, it is manifest that the *690 bill here did not state a case within that .jurisdiction, and the assignment of demurrer for want of equity should have been sustained.

Tlie decree is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

ANDERSON, O. J., and SAYRE and MILLER, JJ., concur.

1

Ante, p. 305.

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

GARDNER, J.

This is a bill for the establishment of a boundary line; the only averment as to this feature being found in páragraph 2, wherein it is alleged that the line between the lands of the parties is disputed by the defendant.

The bill was filed under subdivision 5 of section 3052, Code of 1907, under the theory that by virtue of this subdivision courts of equity would assume jurisdiction to establish disputed boundary lines under all circumstances, regardless of the limitations as ti> jurisdiction set up in the decisions.of this court, among them Ashurst v. McKenzie, 92 Ala. 484, 9 South. 262. Under these authorities it was well established that, in addition to a mere dispute as to the location of a confused or obliterated boundary line, there must be some ground of equitable interposition. Many of such cases are enumerated in the Ashurst Case, supra.

In the very recent case of Goodman v. Carroll, present term, 87 South. 368, 1 this court has construed the above-cited subdivision as only intending to affirm in positive form the ancient jurisdiction of courts of equity, as that jurisdiction had been defined in the Ashurst Case, and elsewhere. Under this construction, therefore, it is manifest that the *690 bill here did not state a case within that .jurisdiction, and the assignment of demurrer for want of equity should have been sustained.

Tlie decree is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

ANDERSON, O. J., and SAYRE and MILLER, JJ., concur.

1

Ante, p. 305.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 So. 55, 205 Ala. 689, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-dunn-ala-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack