Chappelear v. McWhorter
Chappelear v. McWhorter.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
McCLELLAN, J.
The defendant’s demurrer to the original bill being overruled, he appeals to review that action of the court. The original bill, in paragraphs 1 and 2, would avail of the statutory system for the quieting in equity of the title, etc., to land. Code, § 5443 et seq. Averments presenting this feature of complainant’s claim for relief were sufficient to justify .the court in refusing to sustain the general demurrer, asserting the want of equity in the bill. Moore v. Alton, 192 Ala. 261 , 68 South. 326 , The third paragraph of the bill avers that the lands of these parties adjoin and that there is a dispute between them as to the location of the true dividing line; and the fourth paragraph proceeded on the theory (whether well or illy pleaded not being brought into question) that defendant was engaged in damaging, if not destroying, the mineral spring on this land by constantly polluting its waters or otherwise interfering with complainant’s property rights therein. The prayers for relief, in addition to a general prayer, consisted with these several theories of right to relief.
What is called in the brief the “special demurrer,” addressed to the bill as a whole, contained these grounds only:
“(2) That said bill shows that the complainant has a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law in an action of ejectment.
“(3) That said bill shows that the complainant has a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law in an action of trespass.
“(4) That said bill shows that its purpose is ■to settle a disputed boundary line, and that equity has no jurisdiction of said suit, but that his remedy is at law.”
Since the demurrer is addressed to the bill as a whole, error cannot be imputed to the court in overruling the demurrer, the bill possessing equity in respect of its invocation of the statutory system for quieting titles to land, etc. Code, § 5443 et seq.; 5 Mich. Ala. Dig. p. 565, p. 172, noting many decisions applicable here. Furthermore, under subdivision 5 of Code, § 3052, our courts of equity have original jurisdiction to compose disputes over boundary lines. Billups v. Gilbert, 195 Ala. 518 , 70 South. 145 .
The decree is affirmed.
Affirmed.
ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
(&wkey;>JTor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
Addendum
On Rehearing.
McCLELLAN, J.
Two propositions are pressed in opposition to the correctness of the original opinion. It is first insisted that the biil is not sufficient as a bill to quiet title, under Code, § 5443, for that “peaceable possession,” on the part of the complainant (appellee), within the purview of section 5443, is not averred in the bill. It is expressly averred in paragraph ten of the bill that the complainant “is in peaceable possession of the” land described in the bill. While paragraph 4 of the bill alleges wrongful acts affecting the purity -of the water from the spring on the land, it does not, by implication or otherwise, aver possession or aiiy act of possession on the part of the respondent or of his representative or agent. To construe the paragraph otherwise would involve the interpolation, without warrant, of wholly independent allegations — a process that is not sanctioned in this jurisdiction. Furthermore, as pointed out in the original opinion, the demurrer was to the bill “as a whole”; and there was no ground questioning the sufficiency of the bill in the aspect seeking relief under the statutory system for quieting titles. Code, § 5443 et seq.
The other insistence in the application is likewise unsound. The third paragraph of the bill avers explicitly that there is a dispute as to the boundary line between the adjacent lands owned by the parties. There is no ground of demurrer testing the sufficiency of this averment, under Code, § 3052, subdiv. 5. No question of the title to land is projected by any averment in the bill or any implication therefrom.
Tbe application for rehearing is overruled;
ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILDE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.