Court Opinion

ID: 9686209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:33:45.133872+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:16.026260
License: Public Domain

COLEMAN, Justice
(dissenting):
The majority hold that, if complainant is in actual possession of the land, respondent cannot have a decree quieting title in himself, although the evidence shows that respondent has the better title.
In order to reach this result, the majority rely on Fitts v. Alexander, 277 Ala. 372, 170 So.2d 808. In Fitts, this court affirmed a decree quieting title in complainant who had been in possession for more than twenty years. This court said:
“The evidence fully supports the finding of the trial court to the effect that complainant had been in the open, notorious, absolute, hostile and exclusive possession of all of the suit property, claiming to own the same in fee simple for more than twenty-eight consecutive years prior to the filing of the bill of complaint.” (277 Ala. at 376, 170 So.2d at 811)
*75The majority rely on certain statements in Fitts undertaking to categorize certain situations in which the complainant “ . may file a verified bill of complaint in the circuit court . . . to quiet title under § 1116, et seq., Title 7.1
Nothing is said in Fitts about when a respondent may have a decree in his favor in a suit brought under § 1116, Title 7.
The rights of the respondent are found in sections following § 1116. The statute clearly contemplates that respondents may file an answer. See Ex parte Arrington, 259 Ala. 243, 66 So.2d 96. In § 1122, it is provided that “The cause shall be at issue at the expiration of sixty days from the first publication .... provided that all respondents have answered or have suffered decrees pro confesso . . . ,”2
The section which really sets out what may be in the decree, in so far as the statute provides, is § 1126. In § 1126, it is provided that;
“If, upon the hearing of the cause . . the title to the lands .... be duly proved, the court shall decree the title to such property . . . . to be in complainant or cross-complainant .... and such decree shall he binding and'conclusive on all parties made respondents in said cause.” 3
§ 1126 clearly states that if title “be duly proved” in cross-complainant, a decree is to be rendered declaring that title is in the cross-complainant, the respondent. Now, if the construction of the majority is adopted, the court can never decree title in the respondent when complainant is in possession. The statute does not so provide, but clearly contemplates that title shall he declared if the evidence prove the title in one party as against the other. -
The construction of the majority is to the effect that a complainant in possession and entitled to file a bill under § 1116, may win, but he cannot lose. The respondent is called in to declare his title, hut even if he successfully does so, the court cannot render a decree in his favor. § 1116 says that a person who claims to own any land, and-is in “the actual, peaceable possession of the land . . . . ,” or certain conditions exist “ . . . . may .... file a verified bill of complaint . . . .” Nothing in the statute limits or forbids respondent’s right to a decree when respondent has the better title, although complain*76ant is in possession and “may .... file” a bill of complaint.
§ 1126 does not suggest that the legislature intended that a respondent who has been brought into a court of complainant’s choosing and compelled to defend his title, and has done so successfully, shall not recover a favorable decree but shall be compelled to start over in a statutory ejectment action, and subject to the possible necessity for recovering judgment in two such actions. See § 959, Title 7; Moore v. McLean, 248 Ala. 9, 26 So.2d 96.4
For these reasons I would affirm the decree quieting title in the respondent.

. “Under tlic provisions of § 1116, Title 7, Code 1940, as amended, one who claims to own lands or any interest therein, if no suit is pending to test Ms title to, interest in, or his right to the possession of the lands, may file a verified bill of complaint in the circuit court, in equity, of tlie county in which such lands lie, against the lands and any and all persons claiming or reputed to claim any title to, interest in, lien or encumbrance on' said lands, or any part thereof, to establish the right or title to sneli lands, or interest, and to clear up all doubts or disputes concerning the same, when either of the following situations is shown to exist:” (277 Ala. at 375, 170 So.2d at 810)

. “§ 1122. The cause shall be at issue at the expiration of sixty clays from the first publication of the notice, as provided in section 1119, and from the filing of a certified copy of said notice in the probate court in the county where the lands, or a portion thereof, lie; provided that all respondents have answered or have suffered decrees pro confesso to be taken against them and at least one day has elapsed since the rendition of said decrees pro confesso, and provided that any demurrers filed against the bill have been passed on and disposed of by the court, and the guardian ad litem, if any, has answered tlie bill of complaint.”

. “§ 1126. If, upon the hearing of the cause set out under section 1122, the title to tlie lands, or any part of the lands, described in the bill of complaint, or any interest claimed by complainant or cross-complainant in said property, or any part thereof, be duly proved, the court shall decree the title to such property, or the interest therein claimed in the bill of complaint to he in complainant or cross-complainant; or partly in one and partly in the other, specifying the part in or to which each has title or interest, and such decree shall be binding and conclusive on all parties made respondents in said cause.”

. “Section 959, Title 7, Code, provides that two judgments for defendant in an action of ejectment are a bar to further action. — One judgment does not settle the matters in controversy, — Boyle v. Wallace, 81 Ala. 352, 8 So. 194; Bowden v. Turner, Ala.Sup., 247 Ala. 352, 24 So. 2d 429, — except when they are collaterally involved in some other sort of suit.— Carlisle v. Killebrew, 89 Ala. 329, 6 So. 756, 6 L.R.A. 617; Shumake v. Nelms’ Adm'r, 25 Ala. 126.....” (248 Ala. at 11, 26 So.2d at 97)