Bethea v. Bethea
Decision Date | 22 June 1897 |
Citation | 116 Ala. 265,22 So. 561 |
Parties | BETHEA ET AL. v. BETHEA ET AL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Montgomery; A. D. Sayre, Judge.
Bill by Theodore Bethea and another against Eugenia V. Bethea and another. From a decree overruling demurrers to the bill defendants appeal. Affirmed.
The bill filed by the appellees alleges that T. B. Bethea, their grandfather, died testate in 1879, possessed of a large estate; that his will was duly probated, and in the second paragraph thereof was the following bequest: "I give devise and bequeath to my wife Eugenia V. Bethea, my house and lot in the city of Montgomery on the corner of Perry and Grove streets where I now reside and all the household and kitchen furniture, horses and carriage, cows, etc., and debts due to me or coming to me, or other evidences of debt, bonds or obligations which I may hold or do hold at the time of my death, or cash or money on hand, for and during the term of her natural life; and after her death I give, devise and bequeath the same to my three sons, Henry, Alfred and Andrew J., during the term of their natural lives and then to the children that each may have surviving him." That of the bonds which were left by the testator, there were $19,000 of them which came into the hands of Henry Bethea as executor of the testator's last will and testament, and that upon the settlement of the estate it was decreed that Henry Bethea should turn over and deliver to Eugenia V. Bethea the said $19,000 of bonds. That notwithstanding this decree these bonds or their proceeds were in the hands of said Henry Bethea at the time of the filing of this bill. It was further averred that Alfred Bethea, one of the three beneficiaries under the second item of the will died in 1882, subsequent to the final settlement of the estate of Henry Bethea, as executor, and that the plaintiffs are the only children of said Alfred Bethea, and as such children are now the beneficiaries to the extent of a one-third interest in the funds now in the hands of Henry Bethea arising from the sale of said bonds, subject only to the falling in of the life estate of Eugenia V. Bethea. It was then averred in the bill as follows:
Eugenia V. Bethea and Henry Bethea were made parties to the bill, and the prayer of the bill was that Henry Bethea be required to
To this bill the defendants demurred upon the following grounds:
(1) That it appears in and by said bill that the said complainants have no vested interest in the subject of the said suit, the funds sought to be secured being by the will of the said T. B. Bethea, deceased, limited to this respondent for her life and to the three sons of said T. B Bethea for the term of their lives and "then to the children that each may have surviving them," under which limitation only those children can take any interest who are living on the death of the three sons of said T. B. Bethea deceased.
(2) That it is not averred or shown in and by said bill that complainants have any vested interest in the property which is the subject of said suit.
(3) That said bill shows that the said complainants are only entitled contingently upon surviving the three sons of the said testator, and then only to an equal per capita share with all the children of the said three sons so surviving, and that said bill does not show how many children there are who stand in their situation to share with said complainants.
(4) That said bill is uncertain because it furnishes no data by which the interest of complainants in the subject of the suit may be ascertained.
(5) That said bill shows that complainants have no vested interest in the subject of litigation.
Eugenia V. Bethea also filed the following plea to the said bill ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
First Nat. Bank v. Cash
...cited with approval in Phinizy v. Foster, 90 Ala. 262, 7 So. 836; Duncan v. De Yampert, 182 Ala. 528, 536, 62 So. 673; Bethea v. Bethea, 116 Ala. 265, 271, 22 So. 561; Johnson v. Terry, Gdn., etc., 139 Ala. 614, 619, 36 So. 775; Fowlkes v. Clay, 205 Ala. 523, 88 So. 651; Bingham v. Sumner, ......
-
Gunter v. Townsend
...will be indulged to defeat the respondents' vested estates in remainder. Marr, Ex'r, v. McCullough, Adm'r, 6 Port. 507; Bethea v. Bethea, 116 Ala. 265, 22 So. 561; Crawford v. Engram, 153 Ala. 420, 45 So. 584; §§ 3399-3401. It may be insisted that the title to the land vested in said truste......
-
State ex rel. Carmichael v. Bibb, 7 Div. 429
... ... Code, ... §§ 10450, 10451; Amos v. Toolen, et al., 232 Ala ... 587, 168 So. 687; Bethea v. Bethea, 116 Ala. 265, 22 ... So. 561; Jones v. McPhillips, 82 Ala. 102, 2 So ... The ... allegations of the bill in these respects ... ...
-
Merriam v. Wagener
...In re Morris Estate, 9 A.D. 602; In re Embree, 154 N.Y. 778; Rogers v. Strobach, 15 Wash. 472; Shaw v. Eckley, 169 Mass. 119; Bethea v. Bethea, 116 Ala. 265; v. Prescott, 144 Mass. 505; Kottmann v. Gazett, 66 Minn. 88. The same rule applies to personal as to real estate. In re Oertle, 34 Mi......