Williams v. Oates

96 So. 880, 209 Ala. 683, 1923 Ala. LEXIS 580
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided February 8, 1923·No. 4 Div. 24.·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinions

McCLELLAN, J.*

[1] Statutory ejectment, instituted by appellee against appellants. The plaintiff was given the affirmative instruction requested for him. The defendants rely upon the short statute of limitations provided by Code, §' 2311. The court erred in so instructing the jury, because the evidence required the application of the cited short statute of limitations of three years. Long v. Boast, 153 Ala. 428, 44 South. 955; Howard v. Tollett, 202 Ala. 11, 79 South. 309; Doe ex dem. Evers v. Matthews, 192 Ala. 181, 186, 68 South. 182. There are expressions or conclusions in other cases inconsistent with the construction of Code, § 2311, taken in the cases cited; but the later decisions noted above conclude to the effect that the short statute of limitations thereby provided is a bar to an action for the recovery of the subject of a tax sale except in the particular instances described in that statute (section 2311). Howard v. Tollett, supra.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded. .

ANDERSON, O. J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

Williams v. Oates, 96 So. 880, 209 Ala. 683, 1923 Ala. LEXIS 580 (Ala. 1923).

96 So. 880 (Williams v. Oates) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bell v. Williams
54 So. 2d 582 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1951)
Odom v. Averett
27 So. 2d 479 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1946)
Adams v. Pearce
119 So. 236 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1928)
Perry v. Marbury Lumber Co.
103 So. 580 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)
Hambaugh v. McGraw
103 So. 646 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)
Williams v. Oates
102 So. 712 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1924)