Court Opinion

ID: 9445986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:43:13.633709+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:28.943447
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
In Stanley v. Barclay, 1950, 253 Ala. 650, 46 So.2d 210, urged by appellants on petition for rehearing, the evidence affirmatively showed that for more than twenty years Pearl Barclay
“* * * and her predecessors in title have been in the continuous, open, notorious, hostile, adverse possession of the driveway claiming it as their own against all others. We think that not only does the evidence show such claim and right on the part of appellee but also shows that the predecessors in title of appellants conceded such claim and right.” 46 So.2d at page 212.
Lot 35, including the drive on the north of the lot was conveyed to D. E. Barclay on November 12, 1925, more than twenty years before appellants on January 15, 1948 received their deed to Lot 36 still further north. The Alabama Supreme Court found that:
“The evidence appears to show that at no time since D. E. Barclay became seized and possessed of the driveway has anyone been privileged to use the driveway except by permission or for a consideration.”
Stanley v. Barclay, supra, 46 So.2d at page 212.
We find nothing in what was said or held in Stanley v. Barclay, supra, that conflicts with our original opinion and decision. The petition for rehearing is denied.