Sparkman v. Kirkpatrick

Alabama Court of Appeals

Sparkman v. Kirkpatrick

85 So. 829, 17 Ala. App. 428, 1920 Ala. App. LEXIS 96

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 20, 1920

Docket8 Div. 660.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 85 So. 829 (Sparkman v. Kirkpatrick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sparkman v. Kirkpatrick, 85 So. 829, 17 Ala. App. 428, 1920 Ala. App. LEXIS 96 (Ala. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

[1-3] Under the facts of this case, the defendant had a verbal license to out timber on the lands of plaintiff. This did not have the effect of conveying title to the standing timber. Colbey-Hinkley Co. v. Jordan, 146 Ala. 634, 41 South. 962. But as to the timber cut, the title passed to the defendant subject to the lien for stumpage as declared in Code 1907, § 4814' et seq. The plaintiff had no right to take the timber cut under the license without due process of law. Colbey-Hinkley Co. v. Jordan, 146 Ala. 634, 41 South. 962; Gibbs v. Wright, 5 Ala. App. 486, 57 South. 258; Fowler v. Ramsey, 65 Fla. 359, 61 South. 747; Indiana & A. Lbr. Co. v. Eldridge, 89 Ark. 361, 116 S. W. 1173; Griffin v. Anderson, etc., Co., 91 Ark. 292, 121 S. W. 297, 134 Am. St. Rep. 73; Mahan v. Clark, 219 Pa. 229, 68 Atl. 667, 12 Ann. Cas. 729. Notwithstanding the time limit attempted to he fixed by plaintiff, the defendant had a reasonable time in which to remove the timber already cut- at the time the license was revoked. Johnson v. Bumpus, 34 Pa. Super. Ct. 637; Johnson v. Truitt, 122 Ga. 327, 50 S. E. 135. To the same effect is the great weight of authority.

The court erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff, and for that reason the cause must be reversed.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

SAMFORD, J.

[1-3] Under the facts of this case, the defendant had a verbal license to out timber on the lands of plaintiff. This did not have the effect of conveying title to the standing timber. Colbey-Hinkley Co. v. Jordan, 146 Ala. 634, 41 South. 962. But as to the timber cut, the title passed to the defendant subject to the lien for stumpage as declared in Code 1907, § 4814' et seq. The plaintiff had no right to take the timber cut under the license without due process of law. Colbey-Hinkley Co. v. Jordan, 146 Ala. 634, 41 South. 962; Gibbs v. Wright, 5 Ala. App. 486, 57 South. 258; Fowler v. Ramsey, 65 Fla. 359, 61 South. 747; Indiana & A. Lbr. Co. v. Eldridge, 89 Ark. 361, 116 S. W. 1173; Griffin v. Anderson, etc., Co., 91 Ark. 292, 121 S. W. 297, 134 Am. St. Rep. 73; Mahan v. Clark, 219 Pa. 229, 68 Atl. 667, 12 Ann. Cas. 729. Notwithstanding the time limit attempted to he fixed by plaintiff, the defendant had a reasonable time in which to remove the timber already cut- at the time the license was revoked. Johnson v. Bumpus, 34 Pa. Super. Ct. 637; Johnson v. Truitt, 122 Ga. 327, 50 S. E. 135. To the same effect is the great weight of authority.

The court erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff, and for that reason the cause must be reversed.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 So. 829, 17 Ala. App. 428, 1920 Ala. App. LEXIS 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sparkman-v-kirkpatrick-alactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack