Alabama Court of Appeals, 1920

Sparkman v. Kirkpatrick

Sparkman v. Kirkpatrick
Alabama Court of Appeals · Decided April 20, 1920 · Samford
85 So. 829; 17 Ala. App. 428; 1920 Ala. App. LEXIS 96 (Southern Reporter)

Sparkman v. Kirkpatrick

Opinion of the Court

SAMFORD, J.

[1-3] Under the facts of this case, the defendant had a verbal license to out timber on the lands of plaintiff. This did not have the effect of conveying title to the standing timber. Colbey-Hinkley Co. v. Jordan, 146 Ala. 634, 41 South. 962. But as to the timber cut, the title passed to the defendant subject to the lien for stumpage as declared in Code 1907, § 4814' et seq. The plaintiff had no right to take the timber cut under the license without due process of law. Colbey-Hinkley Co. v. Jordan, 146 Ala. 634, 41 South. 962; Gibbs v. Wright, 5 Ala. App. 486, 57 South. 258; Fowler v. Ramsey, 65 Fla. 359, 61 South. 747; Indiana & A. Lbr. Co. v. Eldridge, 89 Ark. 361, 116 S. W. 1173; Griffin v. Anderson, etc., Co., 91 Ark. 292, 121 S. W. 297, 134 Am. St. Rep. 73; Mahan v. Clark, 219 Pa. 229, 68 Atl. 667, 12 Ann. Cas. 729. Notwithstanding the time limit attempted to he fixed by plaintiff, the defendant had a reasonable time in which to remove the timber already cut- at the time the license was revoked. Johnson v. Bumpus, 34 Pa. Super. Ct. 637; Johnson v. Truitt, 122 Ga. 327, 50 S. E. 135. To the same effect is the great weight of authority.

The court erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff, and for that reason the cause must be reversed.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.