Williams v. Oates

Supreme Court of Alabama

Williams v. Oates

96 So. 880, 209 Ala. 683, 1923 Ala. LEXIS 580

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedFebruary 8, 1923

Docket4 Div. 24.

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 96 So. 880 (Williams v. Oates) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 So. 880, 209 Ala. 683, 1923 Ala. LEXIS 580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-oates-ala-1923.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack