Court Opinion

ID: 9667589
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:50:08.89667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:39.166409
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
COLEMAN, Justice.
On application for rehearing, plaintiff says that we “erred in ruling” that it had not acquired title by adverse possession up to the line laid out in 1923 “regardless of the true government line between the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 16” and plaintiff’s land.
We did not “rule” whether plaintiff had acquired title or not. We did say that the question was for the jury.
Defendant’s defense was that he owned the west half of the southwest quarter of section 16 and that he was not liable for the trees he had cut because they were his own trees on his own land.
Plaintiff itself introduced into evidence a deed which showed that it had conveyed the “West Half of Southwest Quarter (W ]4) of (SW ) of Section Sixteen (16) . . . .” to E. N. Amos. It seems to be conceded that defendant had acquired the title which plaintiff conveyed to Amos. Defendant sought to show the location of the east boundary of his land. The deed from plaintiff to Amos described the land so that defendant’s east boundary would be the true east boundary of the west half of the southwest quarter of section sixteen. Defendant introduced the Powell survey to show the location of the true east boundary of west half of southwest quarter of section sixteen. Plaintiff does not even now, if we understand its brief, say that the line shown by the Powell survey is not the true east boundary of the west half of southwest quarter of section sixteen. We think defendant had a right to introduce relevant, competent evidence to prove his theory of the case. The survey was admissible as such evidence.
Plaintiff’s theory, as we understand it, is that the property line between plaintiff and defendant is not the true east boundary of the west half of southwest quarter of section sixteen, but is a line marked by plaintiff in 1923 when the deed to Amos was made. Plaintiff contends that it has acquired title up to this marked line by adverse possession. Plaintiff contends that its line was plainly marked for over thirty years, that defendant’s predecessors agreed to the line, and that plaintiff has exercised dominion and has had possession up to this line since plaintiff marked it in 1923.
Plaintiff’s president testified:
“Yes sir, I saw it there, there’s not any question that the line has been there, that the corner has been there — the trees were marked to show that the corner was *265there and they are old marks and there’s not any question that that corner was set there in ’23 and it’s been there until it’s been removed recently.”
Other witnesses for the plaintiff testified to the same effect.
In answer to plaintiff’s contention, however, defendant says plaintiff has not acquired title to the line claimed by plaintiff and that the marked line claimed by plaintiff did not exist. As we undertook to point out on original deliverance, the surveyor, Powell, and defendant himself, testified that the line claimed by plaintiff did not exist. We do not understand how the jury could accept as true the testimony of all of plaintiff’s witnesses and all of defendant’s witnesses. Plaintiff’s witnesses testified that the line and corners claimed by plaintiff were marked in 1923, and, as we understand the testimony, that the markings were plainly visible until defendant, in 1960, cut the trees for which he is now sued. On the other hand, defendant’s witnesses say no such line existed.
If the jury had been instructed to find for the plaintiff if they believed the evidence, how would the jury have known which evidence to believe? They could not believe both versions. They had to accept one version and reject the other. For that reason, the court did not err in refusing plaintiff’s requested affirmative charges with hypothesis.
Plaintiff correctly says that we did not even mention the cases cited by plaintiff in its original brief to support its Proposition 3, that, if two coterminous owners agree on a boundary and each occupies to it, the possession is presumed adverse and, after ten years, fixes such line as the boundary between such owners. We carefully read all the cases cited in all plaintiff’s briefs but we saw no reason then, and see none now, to mention any cases relating to plaintiff’s Proposition 3 because the correctness of the proposition was not disputed.
We will refer to one case cited by plaintiff on rehearing, to wit, Chastang v. Chastang, 141 Ala. 451, 37 So. 799, for a proposition which, perhaps, we did not clearly express in the original opinion. That proposition is that “ . . . . the party claiming to hold adversely must show by some evidence that he is holding the particular piece óf land to which he claims title, and to show that, there must be some evidence showing the exact boundaries of the land claimed by him.” In Chastang, this court reversed for the error, among others, of refusing the affirmative charge requested by defendant because “ . . . . the entire evidence in this case was wanting; 1st, in pointing out definitely the land which was claimed to have been adversely held . . . .”
In the case at bar, plaintiff claimed, by adverse possession. To prove its claim, plaintiff had the burden of offering evi-' dence to show the exact boundaries of the land claimed by plaintiff. Plaintiff did offer evidence to show such a boundary. Plaintiff offered evidence that there existed a plainly marked line to which plaintiff claimed to have had possession. Defendant, however, offered evidence contradicting plaintiff’s evidence. Defendant’s witnesses testified that the line claimed by plaintiff did not exist. Because the contradictory evidence as to existence of the line clearly presented a question for the jury, if for no other reason, the court did not err in refusing plaintiff’s requested affirmative charges.
After fully considering plaintiff’s application we are not persuaded that we ought to disturb the judgment appealed from.
Opinion extended.
Application overruled.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON and GOODWYN, JJ., concur.