Doe ex dem. Brown v. Hunt
Supreme Court of Alabama
This was an action of ejectment, brought by the plaintiffs in error, in the Circuit Court of Mobile for the recovery of “the east half of the south-west quarter of fractional section number four, south of range number one, west, in the district of land subject to sale at St. Stephens, Alabama, containing eighty acres.” The defendants, under the consent rule, confessed lease, entry and ouster, and the cause was tried on the plea of not guilty.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment, brought by the plaintiffs in error, in the Circuit Court of Mobile for the recovery of “the east half of the south-west quarter of fractional section number four, south of range number one, west, in the district of land subject to sale at St. Stephens, Alabama, containing eighty acres.” The defendants, under the consent rule, confessed lease, entry and ouster, and the cause was tried on the plea of not guilty. On the trial a bill of exceptions was sealed at the instance of the plaintiff, from which it appears that James Eth-eridge, by notice addressed to the…
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.
The first charge of the Court, conceding the truth of all the evidence, affirms that the plaintiffs have not made out a case which entitles them to recover. The second declares, that althbugh the fractional section twenty-two was susceptible of division, so as to make an entire quarter section and leave a residuum, yet neither the acts of Congress providing for the subdivision of fractional sections, or the in*133structions of the Secretary of the Treasury under the act of the 24th April, 1S20, made such a division indispensable; but it was entirely regular to divide the fraction into two tracts…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Blake v. DohertySupreme Court of the United States · 1820
3Cited by1 opinion
- Solomon v. RogersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1923