Case Title: Terry v. Buttram

Citation: 368 So. 2d 859

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1979-03-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
368 So. 2d 859 (1979)
Cleveland Franklin TERRY et al.
v.
John Emerson BUTTRAM et al.
77-477.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
March 23, 1979.
J. G. Speake, Moulton, for appellants.
W. H. Rogers, Moulton, for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The circuit court determined a boundary line dispute and enjoined the appellants-defendants from obstructing a driveway running through their property. We affirm.
The appellees, plaintiffs below, brought this action to enjoin the appellants from blocking a driveway and for a judicial determination of a disputed boundary line. The evidence at the trial showed that the appellants owned a piece of property, approximately three quarters of an acre at the intersection of two paved roads in Lawrence County. This triangular piece of property adjoined a 40 acre tract of land owned by the appellees and a driveway traversed the appellant's property to a residence and some chicken houses situated on the appellees' property. The appellants obstructed this driveway and that action precipitated this suit.
The court found that the driveway in question had "been used by the public for more than 20 years as a public road and there [was] no evidence that there has been a lawful discontinuance of this road." The trial court established the boundary line, ordered judicial markers erected along the boundary line and enjoined the defendants from obstructing the driveway across their property. The court also ordered both parties to remove any encroachments from the *860 property of the other party, per the newlyestablished line. The appellants attack these findings and orders, primarily on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
The appellants assert that if the driveway ever was a public road, it had been abandoned through non-user for the prescriptive period; the appellees did not suffer sufficient injury to warrant injunctive relief and the appellees had acquiesced in the establishment of the previously existing boundary line.
Where testimony is taken ore tenus, this Court will not reverse the findings of the trial court absent a showing of plain and palpable error or manifest injustice. Davis v. Linden, 340 So. 2d 775 (Ala.1976). The ore tenus rule is especially justified in cases like the instant case where numerous exhibits are introduced and the record is replete with inclusive references to these exhibits, i. e. "(here)," "(indicating)." See Baptist Foundation v. Penn, 295 Ala. 122, 324 So. 2d 766 (1975). The trial court is in a much better position than this Court to observe and frame these references with respect to the exhibits and to draw permissible inferences therefrom. Thus, the question we must determine is whether there is sufficient evidence in the record, disputed or otherwise, to support the findings of the trial court.
The appellees presented evidence tending to establish that the driveway in question had been part of a road which connected two other roads.
Testimony of Mr. Clifford Morris:
*862 This testimony is representative of the plaintiffs' presentation; suffice it to say that the defendants controverted the testimony of the plaintiffs' witnesses on crossexamination and in the presentation of their case. We are clear, however, that this testimony, if believed would provide support for the trial court's findings that the driveway was part of a public road and that its use had not been discontinued.
Even though the evidence and exhibits indicated that the appellees had an alternate means of access to their property, it is not manifestly unjust to order the appellants to remove the gate from the driveway. Baptist Foundation, supra.
We find that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial judge's order establishing the boundary line. We note that the boundary established conforms to a survey made in the course of this litigation.
Upon an examination of the entire record, we are convinced that there was sufficient evidence to support the findings of the trial court. McGilberry v. Belcher, 347 So. 2d 370 (Ala.1977). The judgment is due to be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER, ALMON and EMBRY, JJ., concur.