Court Opinion

ID: 9824893
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:38:13.982869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:37:15.205909
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellants in the original brief on file made the following statement: “By agreement between the plaintiffs and defendants it is admitted that John Davenport alias John Hard-wick is the common source of title to said three forties and also to the said East forty, the title to which is involved in this cause. It seems that John Davenport, alias John Hardwick, no doubt a prosperous and deserving negro man who lived in the northern part of Hale County, acquired the said three forties along with a larger acreage from John C. Wilson and wife during the year 1880. It might be said that John C. Wilson is also admitted to be the common source of title to the forty acres or less involved in this suit. Nareilla White is also a common source of title to said three forties.” (Italics supplied.)
The language italicized, when considered in connection with the quoted context and the undisputed facts in the case, can have no other meaning than that said Nareilla White succeeded to the title held by her husband, John Hardwick, and was the owner of said three forties in the year 1903, when she undertook to convey the middle forty and the west forty to her son, Frenshaw Steele.
In the application for rehearing, appellants say: “We are not aware that the defendants made any such concessions as to the facts in this case. The defendants’ counsel never intended to make any such concessions or admissions as to the facts in the ease, and in looking through our brief we can not find where we or the defendants made any such concessions as to the facts in the case. On the contrary the defendants contend that they have not made any such concessions as to the facts, but have insisted and do now insist that such alleged concessions are net true. * * * In the first place Nareilla White is not the common source of title to the land in controversy. She might be in one respect a common source as to an undivided live-eighth’s interest therein. The real common source of title of the property involved in this suit is John C. Wilson, or his grantee, John Hardwick. Nareilla White, alias Nareilla Davenport or Hardwick, has never at any time owned more than an undivided five-eighth’s interest in the land involved in this suit based on the probate records in Hale County. If at any time in our brief we stated that Nareilla White was the common source of title as to all of the property involved in this suit we unintentionally fell into error. However, our brief when read entirely shows conclusively that Nareilla White had never been the common source of the title to said 40 acres of land involved in this suit. She has never had a deed for more than a five-eighth’s undivided interest therein. At the time she and her son, Will Hard-wick, deeded the property to Frenshaw Steele she had an undivided five-eighth’s interest therein and her son, Will Sardwich, had an undivided three-eighth’s interest therein,”
Will Hardwick testified — and his evidence in this respect is not disputed and is corroborated by the testimony of Frenshaw Steele— that “up until the death of my mother some two or three years ago, my mother had been claiming said east forty or the portion thereof North of Baptist Creek and said portion of said east forty is known as the Nareilla White land and is known as the tract of land that was reserved for her son, Anderson Steele, Jr., who left the community some 45 or 50 years ago. * * * During the years from 1898 up to the present time he rented a part of the said east forty from his mother, Nareilla White and paid her at the rate of $3.00 per acre; that Frenshaw Steele during said time from 1903 up to the time of this trial also rented part of said land and paid rent during said time to his mother, Nareilla White, and to this witness after her death; that during, the year 1930 he executed a rent note to his mqther for the rent due by him for the use of the land during the year 1930. Said rent note was dated the 22nd day of March, 1930, and due the 15th of September 1930, and executed to William C. Hardwick, and said note is set out in the testimony of Frenshaw Steele in this cause; that he as*202sessed said N. E. % of S. E. % of Section 19, Township 23, Range 5 East from about the year 1912 up to the present time in his own name; that he was making said assessment, however, as his mother’s agent but that said assessment did not purport to be that he was making the same as agent for his mother, Narcilla White; that Narcilla White leased portions of said land in the east forty to other parties during the time from the year 1898 up to the time of her death during March, 1930, and collected the rents from said parties; that he knows that Frenshaw Steele, Math Silvers, some of the children of Sam B. Oarleton and himself rented portions of the east forty during all of these years and paid rent for same to his mother, Narcilla White, and that they did not pay rent to any other person; that the east forty was known as the Narcilla White land and she claimed same and exercised all the control over it although he tended to it for her during her later years; that Frenshaw Steele never claimed to own any of the east forty, but always rented a small portion of it from his mother and paid her rent for it each year up until the time of her death and then that he and the others who rented the east forty paid the rent to this witness as agent for the heirs.”
This evidence shows that said Narcilla White was in the open notorious adverse possession of said land for ten years prior to the time Frenshaw Steele and wife executed the deed to Brigden; that her possession continued for more than twenty years.
Under the doctrine of prescription, the law conclusively presumes that Narcilla White was the owner m fee, and this presumption precludes all judicial inquiry into her title. Kidd et al. v. Borum, 181 Ala. 144, 61 So. 100, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1226; Moore et al. v. Elliott, 217 Ala. 339, 116 So. 346; Tharp et al. v. Johnson et al., 219. Ala. 537, 122 So. 668.
Therefore, treating appellants’ concession in the original brief as inadvertent, nevertheless it was well grounded, as it clearly appears that, as between the parties to this suit, Narcilla White was in fact the common source of the title.
The record evidence shows the execution of the mortgage to the'Bank of Moundville by Narcilla White, its.due foreclosure, and the purchase of the property by the plaintiff, Georgia Hardwick, and conveyance to her; and, the deed executed by Frenshaw Steele and.wife to Brigden being void, plaintiff was entitled to recover the possession of the land.
The appellants’ criticism of the opinion announced on the-original consideration in respect to the joinder of actions is founded on a misconception of what the opinion holds. - .
The court is therefore of opinion that appellants’ application is without merit and is overruled.
Application overruled.
ANJDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.