prescription doctrine in Alabama

1965In Stearnes v. Woodall, 218 Ala. 128 , 117 So. 643 , after quoting from Kidd v. Borum, 181 Ala. 144 , 61 So. 100 , we said: “In this respect the elements on which the doctrine of prescription is. applied differ from those of adverse possession.

1965In Stearnes v. Woodall, 218 Ala. 128 , 117 So. 643 , after quoting from Kidd v. Borum, 181 Ala. 144 , 61 So. 100 , we said: “In this respect the elements on which the doctrine of prescription is. applied differ from those of adverse possession.

1965In Stearnes v. Woodall, 218 Ala. 128 , 117 So. 643 , after quoting from Kidd v. Borum, 181 Ala. 144 , 61 So. 100 , we said: “In this respect the elements on which the doctrine of prescription is. applied differ from those of adverse possession.

1965In Stearnes v. Woodall, 218 Ala. 128 , 117 So. 643 , after quoting from Kidd v. Borum, 181 Ala. 144 , 61 So. 100 , we said: “In this respect the elements on which the doctrine of prescription is. applied differ from those of adverse possession.

1983Reversing the lower court, this court held: Based upon the theory that men do not ordinarily sleep on their rights for so long a period (Turner v. Turner, 202 Ala. 515 , 81 So. 17 ), this court is committed to the principle that, under the circumstances above outlined, the entire title vests in such occupant under the doctrine of prescription (Miller v. Vizzard Investment Co., 195 Ala. 467 , 70 So. 639 ; Copeland v. Martin, 201 Ala. 472 , 78 So. 378 ; Turner v. Turner, supra; Heath v. Lewis, 200 Ala. 509 , 76 So. 451 ; Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. Broadhead, 210 Ala. 545 , 98 So. 789 ; Jones v.

1983Reversing the lower court, this court held: Based upon the theory that men do not ordinarily sleep on their rights for so long a period (Turner v. Turner, 202 Ala. 515 , 81 So. 17 ), this court is committed to the principle that, under the circumstances above outlined, the entire title vests in such occupant under the doctrine of prescription (Miller v. Vizzard Investment Co., 195 Ala. 467 , 70 So. 639 ; Copeland v. Martin, 201 Ala. 472 , 78 So. 378 ; Turner v. Turner, supra; Heath v. Lewis, 200 Ala. 509 , 76 So. 451 ; Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. Broadhead, 210 Ala. 545 , 98 So. 789 ; Jones v.

2003Woodstock Iron Co. v. Roberts , 87 Ala. 436 , 6 So. 349 [(1888)].

1909In Semple v. Glenn, supra, it is said: “This court has adhered with uniform tenacity to the doctrine of prescription, and has repeatedly held that the lapse of 20 year?, without recognition of right or admission of liability,. operates an absolute rule of repose.” In Woodstock Co. v. Roberts, 87 Ala. 436, 439 , 6 South. 349 , 350, speaking to the statutory prohibition against extension of the period of limitation, it is declared: “This is a statutory affirmation of the doctrine of prescription, which is so extensive in its scope and operation that proof of no disability whatever asserts or reb

1983Reversing the lower court, this court held: Based upon the theory that men do not ordinarily sleep on their rights for so long a period (Turner v. Turner, 202 Ala. 515 , 81 So. 17 ), this court is committed to the principle that, under the circumstances above outlined, the entire title vests in such occupant under the doctrine of prescription (Miller v. Vizzard Investment Co., 195 Ala. 467 , 70 So. 639 ; Copeland v. Martin, 201 Ala. 472 , 78 So. 378 ; Turner v. Turner, supra; Heath v. Lewis, 200 Ala. 509 , 76 So. 451 ; Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. Broadhead, 210 Ala. 545 , 98 So. 789 ; Jones v.

1983Reversing the lower court, this court held: Based upon the theory that men do not ordinarily sleep on their rights for so long a period (Turner v. Turner, 202 Ala. 515 , 81 So. 17 ), this court is committed to the principle that, under the circumstances above outlined, the entire title vests in such occupant under the doctrine of prescription (Miller v. Vizzard Investment Co., 195 Ala. 467 , 70 So. 639 ; Copeland v. Martin, 201 Ala. 472 , 78 So. 378 ; Turner v. Turner, supra; Heath v. Lewis, 200 Ala. 509 , 76 So. 451 ; Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. Broadhead, 210 Ala. 545 , 98 So. 789 ; Jones v.

1953And this is true even though the demand is not barred by the statute of limitations, nor under the ban of the doctrine of prescription.’ Bromberg v. First National Bank, 235 Ala. 226 , 178 So. 48, 53 , and cases cited, 8 Alabama Digest, Equity, ^72, p. 448; Courson v. Tollison, 226 Ala. 530 , 147 So. 635 ; Dunn v. Ponceler, 235 Ala. 269 , 178 So. 40 .” In Wragg v. City of Montgomery, 245 Ala. 362 , 17 So.2d 173, 174 , the Court said: “A demurrer will lie for laches as well as for statutory limitations appearing on the face of a bill of complaint, and we may add to a claim under the circumstanc

1953And this is true even though the demand is not barred by the statute of limitations, nor under the ban of the doctrine of prescription.’ Bromberg v. First National Bank, 235 Ala. 226 , 178 So. 48, 53 , and cases cited, 8 Alabama Digest, Equity, ^72, p. 448; Courson v. Tollison, 226 Ala. 530 , 147 So. 635 ; Dunn v. Ponceler, 235 Ala. 269 , 178 So. 40 .” In Wragg v. City of Montgomery, 245 Ala. 362 , 17 So.2d 173, 174 , the Court said: “A demurrer will lie for laches as well as for statutory limitations appearing on the face of a bill of complaint, and we may add to a claim under the circumstanc

1909In Semple v. Glenn, supra, it is said: “This court has adhered with uniform tenacity to the doctrine of prescription, and has repeatedly held that the lapse of 20 year?, without recognition of right or admission of liability,. operates an absolute rule of repose.” In Woodstock Co. v. Roberts, 87 Ala. 436, 439 , 6 South. 349 , 350, speaking to the statutory prohibition against extension of the period of limitation, it is declared: “This is a statutory affirmation of the doctrine of prescription, which is so extensive in its scope and operation that proof of no disability whatever asserts or reb

1890It is insisted that, under the doctrine of prescription, this lapse of twenty years bars the claim, on the ground that the law will presume that the call for assessments was long since made and satisfied. —Matthews v. McDade, 72 Ala. 377 ; Bozeman v. Bozeman, 82 Ala. 389 , and cases cited p. 391.

2005Such miscarriage or delay will rarely occur; but when they do, it cannot be affirmed that seasonable, proper posting answers the prescription of the rule." *Page 379 185 Ala. at 349 -50 , 64 So. at 311 .

2005Such miscarriage or delay will rarely occur; but when they do, it cannot be affirmed that seasonable, proper posting answers the prescription of the rule." *Page 379 185 Ala. at 349 -50 , 64 So. at 311 .

2003As our Supreme Court explained in Scroggins v. Reneau , 277 Ala. 243 , 246 168 So.2d 614 , 617 (1964): "[T]he respondents, or their predecessors in title, having been in possession of the land and exercising absolute dominion over it adverse to all the world, for more than 20 years, our rule of prescription would vest title in the respondents. " The latter part of [Title 7, § 36, Ala. Code 1940, the predecessor to § 6-2-8 ], to the effect that no disability shall extend the period of limitations so as to allow an action after twenty years is but a statutory affirmation of our doctrine of presc

2003As our Supreme Court explained in Scroggins v. Reneau , 277 Ala. 243 , 246 168 So.2d 614 , 617 (1964): "[T]he respondents, or their predecessors in title, having been in possession of the land and exercising absolute dominion over it adverse to all the world, for more than 20 years, our rule of prescription would vest title in the respondents. " The latter part of [Title 7, § 36, Ala. Code 1940, the predecessor to § 6-2-8 ], to the effect that no disability shall extend the period of limitations so as to allow an action after twenty years is but a statutory affirmation of our doctrine of presc

2003Dallas Compress Co. v. Smith, 190 Ala. 423 , 67 So. 289 (1914); Kidd v. Browne, 200 Ala. 299 , 76 So. 65 (1917); Kyser v. McGlinn, 207 Ala. 82 , 92 So. 13 (1921).

2003Dallas Compress Co. v. Smith, 190 Ala. 423 , 67 So. 289 (1914); Kidd v. Browne, 200 Ala. 299 , 76 So. 65 (1917); Kyser v. McGlinn, 207 Ala. 82 , 92 So. 13 (1921).

1998Braun v. Pettyjohn, 176 Ala. 592 , 58 So. 907 (1912).

1998Braun v. Pettyjohn, 176 Ala. 592 , 58 So. 907 (1912).

1986Lay v. Phillips, 276 Ala. 273 , 161 So.2d 477 (1964); Barry v. Thomas, 273 Ala. 527 , 142 So.2d 918 (1962); Stearnes v. Woodall, 218 Ala. 128 , 117 So. 643 (1928).

1986Lay v. Phillips, 276 Ala. 273 , 161 So.2d 477 (1964); Barry v. Thomas, 273 Ala. 527 , 142 So.2d 918 (1962); Stearnes v. Woodall, 218 Ala. 128 , 117 So. 643 (1928).

1986Lay v. Phillips, 276 Ala. 273 , 161 So.2d 477 (1964); Barry v. Thomas, 273 Ala. 527 , 142 So.2d 918 (1962); Stearnes v. Woodall, 218 Ala. 128 , 117 So. 643 (1928).

1983Lay v. Phillips , 276 Ala. 273 , 161 So.2d 477 (1964); Barry v. Thomas , 273 Ala. 527 , 142 So.2d 918 (1926); Stearnes v. Woodall , 218 Ala. 128 , 117 So. 643 (1928).

1986Lay v. Phillips, 276 Ala. 273 , 161 So.2d 477 (1964); Barry v. Thomas, 273 Ala. 527 , 142 So.2d 918 (1962); Stearnes v. Woodall, 218 Ala. 128 , 117 So. 643 (1928).

1983Lay v. Phillips , 276 Ala. 273 , 161 So.2d 477 (1964); Barry v. Thomas , 273 Ala. 527 , 142 So.2d 918 (1926); Stearnes v. Woodall , 218 Ala. 128 , 117 So. 643 (1928).

1983Reversing the lower court, this court held: Based upon the theory that men do not ordinarily sleep on their rights for so long a period (Turner v. Turner, 202 Ala. 515 , 81 So. 17 ), this court is committed to the principle that, under the circumstances above outlined, the entire title vests in such occupant under the doctrine of prescription (Miller v. Vizzard Investment Co., 195 Ala. 467 , 70 So. 639 ; Copeland v. Martin, 201 Ala. 472 , 78 So. 378 ; Turner v. Turner, supra; Heath v. Lewis, 200 Ala. 509 , 76 So. 451 ; Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. Broadhead, 210 Ala. 545 , 98 So. 789 ; Jones v.

1983Reversing the lower court, this court held: Based upon the theory that men do not ordinarily sleep on their rights for so long a period (Turner v. Turner, 202 Ala. 515 , 81 So. 17 ), this court is committed to the principle that, under the circumstances above outlined, the entire title vests in such occupant under the doctrine of prescription (Miller v. Vizzard Investment Co., 195 Ala. 467 , 70 So. 639 ; Copeland v. Martin, 201 Ala. 472 , 78 So. 378 ; Turner v. Turner, supra; Heath v. Lewis, 200 Ala. 509 , 76 So. 451 ; Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. Broadhead, 210 Ala. 545 , 98 So. 789 ; Jones v.

1983Reversing the lower court, this court held: Based upon the theory that men do not ordinarily sleep on their rights for so long a period (Turner v. Turner, 202 Ala. 515 , 81 So. 17 ), this court is committed to the principle that, under the circumstances above outlined, the entire title vests in such occupant under the doctrine of prescription (Miller v. Vizzard Investment Co., 195 Ala. 467 , 70 So. 639 ; Copeland v. Martin, 201 Ala. 472 , 78 So. 378 ; Turner v. Turner, supra; Heath v. Lewis, 200 Ala. 509 , 76 So. 451 ; Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. Broadhead, 210 Ala. 545 , 98 So. 789 ; Jones v.

1983Reversing the lower court, this court held: Based upon the theory that men do not ordinarily sleep on their rights for so long a period (Turner v. Turner, 202 Ala. 515 , 81 So. 17 ), this court is committed to the principle that, under the circumstances above outlined, the entire title vests in such occupant under the doctrine of prescription (Miller v. Vizzard Investment Co., 195 Ala. 467 , 70 So. 639 ; Copeland v. Martin, 201 Ala. 472 , 78 So. 378 ; Turner v. Turner, supra; Heath v. Lewis, 200 Ala. 509 , 76 So. 451 ; Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. Broadhead, 210 Ala. 545 , 98 So. 789 ; Jones v.

1983Reversing the lower court, this court held: Based upon the theory that men do not ordinarily sleep on their rights for so long a period (Turner v. Turner, 202 Ala. 515 , 81 So. 17 ), this court is committed to the principle that, under the circumstances above outlined, the entire title vests in such occupant under the doctrine of prescription (Miller v. Vizzard Investment Co., 195 Ala. 467 , 70 So. 639 ; Copeland v. Martin, 201 Ala. 472 , 78 So. 378 ; Turner v. Turner, supra; Heath v. Lewis, 200 Ala. 509 , 76 So. 451 ; Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. Broadhead, 210 Ala. 545 , 98 So. 789 ; Jones v.

1983Reversing the lower court, this court held: Based upon the theory that men do not ordinarily sleep on their rights for so long a period (Turner v. Turner, 202 Ala. 515 , 81 So. 17 ), this court is committed to the principle that, under the circumstances above outlined, the entire title vests in such occupant under the doctrine of prescription (Miller v. Vizzard Investment Co., 195 Ala. 467 , 70 So. 639 ; Copeland v. Martin, 201 Ala. 472 , 78 So. 378 ; Turner v. Turner, supra; Heath v. Lewis, 200 Ala. 509 , 76 So. 451 ; Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. Broadhead, 210 Ala. 545 , 98 So. 789 ; Jones v.

1983Reversing the lower court, this court held: Based upon the theory that men do not ordinarily sleep on their rights for so long a period (Turner v. Turner, 202 Ala. 515 , 81 So. 17 ), this court is committed to the principle that, under the circumstances above outlined, the entire title vests in such occupant under the doctrine of prescription (Miller v. Vizzard Investment Co., 195 Ala. 467 , 70 So. 639 ; Copeland v. Martin, 201 Ala. 472 , 78 So. 378 ; Turner v. Turner, supra; Heath v. Lewis, 200 Ala. 509 , 76 So. 451 ; Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. Broadhead, 210 Ala. 545 , 98 So. 789 ; Jones v.

1983Reversing the lower court, this court held: Based upon the theory that men do not ordinarily sleep on their rights for so long a period (Turner v. Turner, 202 Ala. 515 , 81 So. 17 ), this court is committed to the principle that, under the circumstances above outlined, the entire title vests in such occupant under the doctrine of prescription (Miller v. Vizzard Investment Co., 195 Ala. 467 , 70 So. 639 ; Copeland v. Martin, 201 Ala. 472 , 78 So. 378 ; Turner v. Turner, supra; Heath v. Lewis, 200 Ala. 509 , 76 So. 451 ; Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. Broadhead, 210 Ala. 545 , 98 So. 789 ; Jones v.

1974Semple v. Glenn, 91 Ala. 245 , 6 So. 46 , 9 So. 265 , Snodgrass v. Snodgrass, 176 Ala. 276 , 58 So. 201 , Eatman v. Goodson, 262 Ala. 242 , 78 So.2d 625 , Ballenger v. Liberty National Life Ins.

1904The decisions of this court are very strong on the doctrine of prescription, holding that the period of twenty years is one “beyond which human transactions shall not be open to judicial investigation,” and this period of repose has been made applicable to all kinds of pecuniary obligations, including fiduciary demands in favor of cesluis que trust. — McArthur v. Carrie’s Admr., 32 Ala. 75, 88 ; Garrett v. Garrett, 69 Ala. 429 ; Semple v. Glenn, 91 Ala. 245, 261 , et seq.

1959In Findlay v. Hardwick, 230 Ala. 197 , 160 So. 336, 340 , it was said: “Under the doctrine of prescription, the law conclusively presumed that Marcella White was the owner in fee, and this presumption precludes all judicial inquiry into her title.

1959In Findlay v. Hardwick, 230 Ala. 197 , 160 So. 336, 340 , it was said: “Under the doctrine of prescription, the law conclusively presumed that Marcella White was the owner in fee, and this presumption precludes all judicial inquiry into her title.

1956There is another principle which is here material and is stated as follows in Findlay v. Hardwick, 230 Ala. 197 , 160 So. 336 , 340: “Under the doctrine of prescription, the law conclusively presumes that * * * was the owner in fee, and this presumption precludes all judicial inquiry into her title.” Citing Kidd v. Borum, 181 Ala. 144, 161 , 61 So. 100 ; Moore v. Elliott, 217 Ala. 339 , 116 So. 346 ; Tharp v. Johnson, 219 Ala. 537 , 122 So. 668 .

1956There is another principle which is here material and is stated as follows in Findlay v. Hardwick, 230 Ala. 197 , 160 So. 336 , 340: “Under the doctrine of prescription, the law conclusively presumes that * * * was the owner in fee, and this presumption precludes all judicial inquiry into her title.” Citing Kidd v. Borum, 181 Ala. 144, 161 , 61 So. 100 ; Moore v. Elliott, 217 Ala. 339 , 116 So. 346 ; Tharp v. Johnson, 219 Ala. 537 , 122 So. 668 .

1956There is another principle which is here material and is stated as follows in Findlay v. Hardwick, 230 Ala. 197 , 160 So. 336 , 340: “Under the doctrine of prescription, the law conclusively presumes that * * * was the owner in fee, and this presumption precludes all judicial inquiry into her title.” Citing Kidd v. Borum, 181 Ala. 144, 161 , 61 So. 100 ; Moore v. Elliott, 217 Ala. 339 , 116 So. 346 ; Tharp v. Johnson, 219 Ala. 537 , 122 So. 668 .

1956There is another principle which is here material and is stated as follows in Findlay v. Hardwick, 230 Ala. 197 , 160 So. 336 , 340: “Under the doctrine of prescription, the law conclusively presumes that * * * was the owner in fee, and this presumption precludes all judicial inquiry into her title.” Citing Kidd v. Borum, 181 Ala. 144, 161 , 61 So. 100 ; Moore v. Elliott, 217 Ala. 339 , 116 So. 346 ; Tharp v. Johnson, 219 Ala. 537 , 122 So. 668 .

1953And this is true even though the demand is not barred by the statute of limitations, nor under the ban of the doctrine of prescription.’ Bromberg v. First National Bank, 235 Ala. 226 , 178 So. 48, 53 , and cases cited, 8 Alabama Digest, Equity, ^72, p. 448; Courson v. Tollison, 226 Ala. 530 , 147 So. 635 ; Dunn v. Ponceler, 235 Ala. 269 , 178 So. 40 .” In Wragg v. City of Montgomery, 245 Ala. 362 , 17 So.2d 173, 174 , the Court said: “A demurrer will lie for laches as well as for statutory limitations appearing on the face of a bill of complaint, and we may add to a claim under the circumstanc

1953And this is true even though the demand is not barred by the statute of limitations, nor under the ban of the doctrine of prescription.’ Bromberg v. First National Bank, 235 Ala. 226 , 178 So. 48, 53 , and cases cited, 8 Alabama Digest, Equity, ^72, p. 448; Courson v. Tollison, 226 Ala. 530 , 147 So. 635 ; Dunn v. Ponceler, 235 Ala. 269 , 178 So. 40 .” In Wragg v. City of Montgomery, 245 Ala. 362 , 17 So.2d 173, 174 , the Court said: “A demurrer will lie for laches as well as for statutory limitations appearing on the face of a bill of complaint, and we may add to a claim under the circumstanc

1953And this is true even though the demand is not barred by the statute of limitations, nor under the ban of the doctrine of prescription.’ Bromberg v. First National Bank, 235 Ala. 226 , 178 So. 48, 53 , and cases cited, 8 Alabama Digest, Equity, ^72, p. 448; Courson v. Tollison, 226 Ala. 530 , 147 So. 635 ; Dunn v. Ponceler, 235 Ala. 269 , 178 So. 40 .” In Wragg v. City of Montgomery, 245 Ala. 362 , 17 So.2d 173, 174 , the Court said: “A demurrer will lie for laches as well as for statutory limitations appearing on the face of a bill of complaint, and we may add to a claim under the circumstanc

1953And this is true even though the demand is not barred by the statute of limitations, nor under the ban of the doctrine of prescription.’ Bromberg v. First National Bank, 235 Ala. 226 , 178 So. 48, 53 , and cases cited, 8 Alabama Digest, Equity, ^72, p. 448; Courson v. Tollison, 226 Ala. 530 , 147 So. 635 ; Dunn v. Ponceler, 235 Ala. 269 , 178 So. 40 .” In Wragg v. City of Montgomery, 245 Ala. 362 , 17 So.2d 173, 174 , the Court said: “A demurrer will lie for laches as well as for statutory limitations appearing on the face of a bill of complaint, and we may add to a claim under the circumstanc

1915This being true, such possession on his part, without recognition of any claim, right, or title of another, would operate as an absolute repose under the doctrine of prescription. — Roach v. Cox, 160 Ala. 425 , 49 South, 135 Am.

1913This being true, such possession on his part, without recognition of any claim, light, or titie of another, would operate as an absolute repose under the doctrine of prescription. — Roach v. Cox, 160 Ala. 425 , 49 South. 578 , 135 Am.

1904The decisions of this court are very strong on the doctrine of prescription, holding that the period of twenty years is one “beyond which human transactions shall not be open to judicial investigation,” and this period of repose has been made applicable to all kinds of pecuniary obligations, including fiduciary demands in favor of cesluis que trust. — McArthur v. Carrie’s Admr., 32 Ala. 75, 88 ; Garrett v. Garrett, 69 Ala. 429 ; Semple v. Glenn, 91 Ala. 245, 261 , et seq.

1881As suggested by this court, in McArthur v. Carrie's Adm'r , 32 Ala. 75 , the reasons are forcible why it should be applied to all human transactions which are open to judicial investigation, and the rule by common consent of the courts has been fixed at a period of twenty years.

1904The decisions of this court are very strong on the doctrine of prescription, holding that the period of twenty years is one “beyond which human transactions shall not be open to judicial investigation,” and this period of repose has been made applicable to all kinds of pecuniary obligations, including fiduciary demands in favor of cesluis que trust. — McArthur v. Carrie’s Admr., 32 Ala. 75, 88 ; Garrett v. Garrett, 69 Ala. 429 ; Semple v. Glenn, 91 Ala. 245, 261 , et seq.

1883Until this is done, no length of time, less than twenty years, will operate as a bar; and this rule of twenty years is one of presumptive evidence, based on the doctrine of prescription, and not upon the statutes of limitation. — Garrett v. Garrett, 69 Ala. 429 ; 2 Perry on Trusts, § 863; Law of Trusts (Tiff. & Bul.), 716.