Case ID: ala_142/html/0486-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ANDERSON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lyon v. Arndt.
    
      Statutory Bills- to- determine Glaims to Real Estate and Quiet Title thereto-.
    
    1. Statutory Mil to quiet title; what possession necessary to maintain it. — To maintain a bill under the statute for the determination of claims to real estate and to quiet title thereto, it is necessary for the complainant to aver and prove that at the time of the institution of the suit the complainant’s possession to the lands involved was peaceable, as contradistinguished from disputed or contested possession, and that it was under claim of ownership.
    Appeal from the Chancery Court of Mobile.
    Heard before the Hon. Ti-iomas H. Smith.
    The bill in this case was filed by the appellant, Emily C. Lyon against George E. Arndt, and was filed under the statute authorizing the filing of bills in chancery to quiet title, and to determine claims for real estate. In the bill the complaint averred that she was in the actual, peaceable possession of the lands described, claiming to own and did own the same. The other averment of the bill were in substantial compliance with the statute.
    The respondent, in his answer, denied that the complainant owned the lands, or was in peaceable possession of them before the institution of the suit, and averred that at the time of the institution of the suit the complainant’s title and right to possession was disputed. The evidence introduced was in irreconcilable conflict ; the testimony for the complainant tending to show that her agent had built a one-room house on the lands before the institution of the suit, and that timber had been' cut from the land under her authority. While the testimony for the defendant tended to show that he purchased -the lands after the institution of the suit, and that ¡his grantors and those through whom he claimed had been in peaceable possession of the land for many years.
    On the final submission of the cause upon the pleadings and proof, the chancellor decreed that the complainant was not entitled to relief, and ordered the bill dismissed, he reciting in his opinion that the evidence was not satisfactory to sIioav that complainant, was in peaceable possession at the time of the institution of the suit.
    From this decree the complainant appeals and assigns the rendition thereof as error.
    Era'in & McAleer, for appellant.
    
      Charles L. Bromberg and Massey Wilson, contra,
    
    cited Code of Ala. 1896, § 809-10; Brand v. U. 8. Car Co., 128 Ala. 579; Adler v. Bullirán, 115 Ala. 586-7.
   ANDERSON, J.

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.

McClellan, C. J., Tyson and Simpson, J.J., concurring.