Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

51 Ala. 431

Daniel v. Day

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 15, 1874

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1874-06-15

Arpead from the Circuit Court of Cherokee. Tried before the Hon. Wl. L. Whitlock. This action was brought by Alfred Day and others, children and heirs-at-law of Calvin Day, deceased, against James H. Daniel, to recover the possession of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of section two (2), in township nine (9), range nine (9) east, in said county, together with damages for its detention ; and was commenced on the 11th November, 1871.

Relies on Lowe's Adm'r v. Jones · Caldwell ex dem. Caldwell v. Thorp · Branch Bank at Decatur v. Donelson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1874-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 1917

5 state decisions

2018741880189019001910decided

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 →

B. F. SAFFOLD, J.

¶1The errors assigned relate to the application of the statute of limitations. The parties and the court below, seem to have been under the impression that the case was governed by the limitations prescribed by the Revised Code. But section 2926 (R. C.) confines such limitations to causes of action accruing, and possessions commencing, on or after the 17th day of January, 1853, the day on which the Code of 1853 went into operation ; and continues in force the statutes of limitations existing at that time, in respect to causes of action accruing, and possessions commencing, prior to that time. Twenty years did not intervene between the commencement of this suit and the date of the Code, as above mentioned. But ten years did elapse, and the allowance of three years after the termination of the disability of infancy, as prescribed by section 2910 (R. C.), was applicable. For this reason, the second' charge asked by the defendant was properly refused. If the adverse possession of the defendant, or of Wyatt Day, be deemed to have commenced in 1846, or at any time prior to the 17th January, 1853, the statute of limitations of 1843 applies. Clay’s Digest, 329, § 93. And if the statute began to run against Calvin Day himself, it would not cease to run against his heirs on account of his death. Caldwell v. *434Thorpe, 8 Ala. 253; Br. Bank at Decatur v. Donelson, 12 Ala. 741; Lowe’s Adm’r v. Jones, 15 Ala. 545.

¶2The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

/51/ala/431 · .json · Public domain