Lyon v. Arndt
142 Ala. 486
Opinion
To maintain this bill it requires a peaceable possession as contradistinguished from disputed or contested possession and that it should be under claim of ownership. — Code, 1896, § £03; Brand v. U. S. Car Co., 128 Ala. 579; Adler v. Sullivan, 115 Ala. 582.
We think the facts fully Avarranted the chancellor in dismissing the bill upon the final hearing.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Lyon v. Arndt, 142 Ala. 486 (Ala. 1904).
142 Ala. 486 (Lyon v. Arndt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Chestang v. Tensaw Land & Timber Company
134 So. 2d 159 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1960)
McGowin v. Felts
83 So. 2d 228 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1955)
Adams v. Woods
82 So. 2d 531 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1955)
Brookside-Pratt Mining Co. v. Wright
173 So. 605 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1937)
Watson v. Baker
154 So. 788 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1934)
McCaleb v. Worcester
140 So. 595 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1932)
Hicks v. Stone
99 So. 115 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1924)
Carr v. Moore
82 So. 473 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1919)
Continental Trust Co. v. Tallassee Falls Mfg. Co.
222 F. 694 (M.D. Alabama, 1915)
Central of Georgia Railroad v. Rouse
57 So. 706 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1912)
Kinney v. Steiner Bros.
52 So. 593 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1910)
Sayers v. Tallassee Falls Mfg. Co.
52 So. 892 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1910)
Holland v. Coleman
50 So. 128 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1909)
George E. Wood Lumber Co. v. Williams
47 So. 202 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1908)
Crabtree v. Alabama Land Co.
46 So. 450 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1908)
Johnson v. Johnson
41 So. 522 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1906)
Foy v. Barr
39 So. 578 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1905)