Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

27 Ala. 359

Hines v. Trantham

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 15, 1855

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1855-06-15

Tried before the Hon. B. W. Huntington. This action was brought by the appellants, in December, 1851, to recover the possession of a certain tract of land in the county of Pickens, as well as damages by way of rent for its detention ; and the only plea was, not guilty.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1855-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1916

1 district · 3 state decisions

201855186018701880189019001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

RICE, J.

¶1Tenants in common of land may maintain separate actions of trespass to try titles, for their interests. Craig v. Taylor, 6 B. Monroe, 451 ; Baker v. The Heirs of Chastang, 18 Ala. R. 417 ; Childers v. Tankersley, 28 ib. 781; Adams on Ejectment, 211.

¶2Upon the facts shown in the bill of exceptions, Mrs. Hines was one of the heirs of her father, and also one of the heirs of her sister, Mrs. Crimm. In 1845, Mrs. Crimm died, without issue, and her husband died before this suit was commenced. Conceding, then, that the proceedings of the Orphans’ Court óf Pickens county, and of the commissioners appointed by it, are void, and did not invest Mrs. Crimm with title to any land ; yet, as one of the heirs of her father, she had such an interest in his land, as would, upon her death without issue, descend to Mrs. Hines, as one of her heirs, and entitle her husband and her to maintain trespass to try titles, to recover that interest. This plain legal proposition is denied by the fourth charge of the court below, as we understand that charge, and as the jury doubtless understood it. In this, the court below erred ; and for that error, there must be a reversal, although there may be defects in the plaintiff’s proof on other material points — it not appearing that these defects cannot be supplied on another trial. — Cotten v. Thompson, 25 Ala. R. 671.

¶3Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

/27/ala/359 · .json · Public domain