Opinion
5 Div. 518.
October 18, 1951.
Appeal from the Law Equity Court, Chilton County, Victor J. Heard, J.
J. B. Atkinson, Clanton, for appellants.
Ordinarily a bill to settle disputed boundary line should describe true line or allege that it is unknown to complainant. Baldwin v. Harrelson, 225 Ala. 386, 143 So. 558; Smith v. Cook, 220 Ala. 338, 124 So. 898. Where there is an ambiguity apparent in the description of property conveyed in a deed interpretation of the conveyance is for the court. Henderson v. Noland, 238 Ala. 213, 189 So. 732, 123 A.L.R. 483; Chambers v. Ringstaff, 69 Ala. 140. A bill to establish a boundary line between coterminous tracts of land should specifically aver and show that there is a controversy, a dispute between the coterminous proprietors, as to the correct location of the boundary line. In the absence of such controversy a court of equity will not intervene. Mobile County v. Taylor, 234 Ala. 167, 174 So. 302; Smith v. Cook, supra; Mink v. Whitfield, 218 Ala. 334, 118 So. 559. The general rule is that where a departure from either course or distance becomes necessary the distance must yield. As otherwise expressed, the rule is not to discard any course so long as by altering distance only the survey can be made to close, leaving all identified corners intact. The courses should first be pursued, contracting or extending the distances as may be required to make a survey close. 9 C.J. § 160 p. 226; Van Valkenburg v. Geron, 249 Ala. 467, 31 So.2d 767; Page v. Whatley, 162 Ala. 473, 50 So. 116. The words "North" and "South" when used in land descriptions mean respectively due North and due South. 16 Amer.Jur. § 284 p. 598; Plaquemines Oil Dev. Co. v. State, 208 La. 425, 23 So.2d 171.
Omar L. Reynolds and Reynolds Reynolds, all of Clanton, for appellee.
In a suit to establish boundary line setting forth the property owned by the contiguous owners and describing the true line and alleging that the same is in dispute, gives equity to the bill as against apt demurrer. Smith v. Cook, 220 Ala. 338, 124 So. 898; Baldwin v. Harrelson, 225 Ala. 386, 143 So. 558; Sloss-Sheffield Steel Iron Co. v. Coosa Land Co., 231 Ala. 134, 163 So. 898; Ford v. Beam, 241 Ala. 340, 2 So.2d 411; Sellers v. Valenzuela, 249 Ala. 627, 32 So.2d 517.
Paragraph 2 of the bill is as follows:
"2. That complainant is the owner of the following described real estate situated in Chilton County, Alabama, to-wit:
"Begin at a point 1069 feet East of the Northwest corner of NE1/4 of SW1/4, Section 13, Township 23, Range 15 East, thence run East 251 feet to the Northeast corner of said quarter section, thence South 3 degrees 30 minutes East for 231 feet to the shore line of Lay Dam Lake, thence South 20 degrees 30 minutes West along the shore line of Lay Dam Lake 107 feet, thence North 80 degrees 30' West along the shore line of Lay Dam Lake 411 feet, thence North 267 feet to the point of beginning.
"That the respondents are the owners of the following described property situated in Chilton County, Alabama:
"Beginning at a certain Black Gum tree about eight or ten inches in diameter or iron stob beside said tree, which stob and tree stand at the head of the slough on the back water of Lay Dam Lake, and from said point as a beginning point, run due West to the land line on the West side of the Northeast fourth of the Southwest fourth of Section 13, Township 23, Range 15, and thence North along the West line of said described forty acres of land to the Northwest corner of the Northeast fourth of the Southwest fourth of Section 13, Township 23, Range 15E, thence East 1069 feet along the North boundary of said forty acres of land to the property line of H. H. Pickens, and thence South along the H. H. Pickens property line about 107 feet to the shore line of the slough, and thence following the shore line of said slough, which is a part of the Lay Dam Lake to the point of beginning at head of slough; which contains nine acres, more or less, situated in the Northeast fourth of the Southwest fourth, Section 13, Township 23 Range 15. It is understood and agreed that the original road across the above described land to the property of H. H. Pickens must be kept open."
Amended paragraph 4 is as follows:
"Paragraph 4. The complainant further avers that there is a dispute as to the correct location of the true boundary line dividing the lands of the complainant from the lands of the respondents and that said true boundary line dividing the lands of the complainant from the lands of the respondents is the line lying on the West and Southwest side of the complainant's land and being a line running North 80 degrees 30 minutes West along the shore line of Lay Dam Lake 411 feet, thence North 267 feet to the point of beginning, of the property described in Paragraph 2 of this bill as amended."
The following is a map of the lands involved:
Bill to settle a disputed boundary line between coterminous landowners, pursuant to Chapter 2, Article 1, Title 47, Code 1940. The defendants appeal from a decree overruling demurrer to the bill as amended.
The requisites of such a bill are well understood. The bill must show a dispute between the adjoining proprietors as to the correct line and ordinarily the true line should be described or it should be alleged that the true line is unknown. Mobile County v. Taylor, 234 Ala. 167, 174 So. 301; Baldwin v. Harrelson, 225 Ala. 386, 143 So. 558; Smith v. Cook, 220 Ala. 338, 124 So. 898.
The bill as amended satisfies these requisites. It shows that the complainant is the owner of certain described lands in Chilton County, describing the same by metes and bounds, courses and distances, and that the defendants own lands adjoining, describing these lands in the same manner. It is then shown that the defendants' land lies on the west side of the complainant's land and that the true boundary line is the west and southwest line of the complainant's land as thus described, and that the said line is in dispute. Paragraph 4 of the bill then specifically describes this disputed boundary line by course and distance, giving the terminal point. These allegations, in our view, suffice to make the bill good against the asserted grounds of demurrer. Sloss-Sheffield Steel Iron Co. v. Coosa Land Co., 231 Ala. 134, 163 So. 898; Wise v. Massee, 239 Ala. 559, 196 So. 275.
It is the contention of appellants that there is a patent ambiguity in the description of the appellants' land, making it necessary that the court should have determined this fact on demurrer; in effect, as we understand the argument, should have determined on that hearing exactly where the true boundary was. In this we cannot agree. There must be a hearing on the facts. The complainant's land, as regards the disputed line, is described in the bill as beginning at a point 1069 feet east of the northwest corner, and going east 251 feet to the northeast corner of the quarter section; thence south 3 degrees thirty minutes east 231 feet to the shore line of the lake; thence south 20 degrees thirty minutes west along the shore line 107 feet, thence north 80° west along the shore line of the lake 411 feet, thence north 267 feet to the point of beginning. Then the east line of defendants' land, the main line in dispute, is described in substance as being the west line of the plaintiff's land. It would be impossible to determine the true line on a hearing on demurrer. It cannot be said with any certainty that the exact measurements of these respective lines are accurate. The matters of description designate well-defined terminal points and in such a case the descriptive courses and distances must yield. The defined terminal points and the fixed boundaries will dominate. Marengo County v. Wilcox County, 215 Ala. 640, 112 So. 243; Page v. Whatley, 162 Ala. 473, 50 So. 116.
For a better understanding of the opinion and to illustrate our conclusion, the report will reproduce a map of the lands and the respective descriptions.
It is our view that the demurrer was properly overruled.
Affirmed.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and FOSTER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.