554 So.2d at 961. One of the theories advanced by Hugh O’Neal, Lonnie Hill, and Anita Hill in their complaint was that the roadway had been, and remained, a public road. Testimony was later introduced at trial regarding whether the roadway was a public road, and O’Neal and the Hills argued again in their posttrial brief that the roadway was a public road. Thus, the question whether the roadway was a public road was clearly before the trial court. Although the trial court found in favor of O’Neal and the Hills based on their alternate claim — that they had a private easement by prescri y was an indispensable party to an action between two private parties where there was evidence indicating that a roadway at issue was once public); Burnett v. Munoz, 853 So.2d 963, 966 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) (<HOLDING>); and Laney v. Garmon, 25 So.3d 478, 480
holding diversity jurisdiction was collusively obtained because the transferor retained a onehalf interest in the outcome of the litigation and was an indispensable party but for the assignment holding that the county was an indispensable party to an action between two private parties in which the public status of a roadway was in question recognizing private right of action holding that the grant county prosecutor had a statutory duty to be legal advisor to the county clerk even though she was not embroiled in litigation in which the county was the real party in interest holding that the county was an indispensable party to an action between private parties involving the question whether the plaintiffs had acquired a private easement or alternatively whether the roadway was a public road