Opinion ID: 1609868
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Outstanding Title in Third Party

Text: Briefly, the evidence on this point is as follows: As already noted, it is conceded by the parties that title to the disputed tract was vested in one Daniel Kelly in 1859 as part of a much larger tract. The evidence shows that on December 20, 1866, before Kelly's conveyance (on March 18, 1870) to plaintiffs' predecessor in title, he conveyed to one John H. Herbert, out of his lands, a tract containing three acres, more or less, it being recited in the deed that it embraces the present location of the Herbert saw mill. Defendants contend that the disputed tract is a part of this saw mill site conveyed to Herbert and hence did not pass to plaintiffs' predecessor in title. The defendant does not connect his title with Herbert's title but seeks to prove that title to the disputed tract is outstanding in a third party and not in plaintiffs. It is well-settled that a defendant in ejectment who [is] in possession in good faith under color of title may defend by showing an outstanding title in another with which he does not connect himself. Lathem v. Lee, 249 Ala. 532, 535, 32 So.2d 211, 214; Tapia v. Williams, 172 Ala. 18, 29, 54 So. 613; Dodge v. Irvington Land Co., 158 Ala. 91, 96, 48 So. 383, 22 L.R.A.,N.S., 1100. However, the evidence is in conflict as to whether the disputed tract is in fact included in the deed to Herbert. The description in the Herbert deed is as follows: Commencing at a stake due north ten chains and fifty links from a point on the division line between division numbers one and two of the McVoy tract in Township Five South Range One West said point being due west twenty-nine chains from a pine stump immediately on the east line of the Old Cedar Point Rail Road and on the division line of said Division No. 1 and 2 of the McVoy tract thence due West 5 chains to a stake, thence due north five chains more or less to Stickney Creek thence with the meanderings of Stickney Creek easterly to a point thence due South nine chains more or less to place of beginning. Containing three acres more or less and embracing the present location of the Herbert Saw Mill. Together with the right of way of a road twenty feet wide. The Southern line of said road commencing at the south east corner of the above described three acre tract and running due east to the Cedar Point Rail Road its northern line running parallel to it and distant therefrom twenty feet. It will be noted that the north boundary of the property conveyed to Herbert is described as following the meanderings of Stickney Creek. If the present bed of Stickney Creek (now called Robinson's Bayou) is in fact the only bed the creek has had, and is the Stickney Creek indicated in the Herbert deed, it would appear that the disputed tract is, as claimed by defendants, included in the Herbert deed. Plaintiffs, however, introduced evidence tending to show that Stickney Creek once had two branches, and that a strip of low, marshy land running south of the disputed area was actually Stickney Creek referred to in the Herbert deed. It appears that the low, marshy strip coincided with the other metes and bounds in the Herbert description more closely than the present bed of Stickney Creek (now known as Robinson's Bayou). It is also to be noted that the description in the Herbert deed recites that it embraces the present location of the Herbert Saw Mill. Hagan testified that he remembered the mill while it was still partially standing and that it was located on the tract in dispute. A registered surveyor, however, stated that he had found old brick pillars and pilings south of the disputed area, across the strip of marshy ground, indicating that the mill was situated to the south of the disputed tract. This evidence clearly presented a question of fact as to whether the tract now in dispute was actually contained in the conveyance to Herbert. In order for defendants to maintain their defense that title was outstanding in a third party it was essential that there be a finding by the court that the disputed tract was contained in the Herbert deed. The trial court, however, resolved this question in favor of the plaintiffs. Under the settled rule of review we would not be justified in disturbing the trial court's findings from the evidence. Affirmed. SIMPSON, MERRILL and SPANN, JJ., concur.