Brantley v. Flowers, 1 Div. 411
| Decision Date | 09 November 1950 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 411 |
| Parties | BRANTLEY v. FLOWERS et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
H. M. Hall, of Bay Minette, for appellant.
J. B. Blackburn, of Bay Minette, for appellees.
Bill for declaratory judgment to determine the marital status of the late Buster Flowers who died seized and possessed of the lands in controversy as against the claim of Ethel Flowers that she is the lawful widow of the decedent, and for incidental relief.
The trial court sustained the demurrer to the bill on the ground that it was without equity, (sic) 'complainant has an adequate remedy at law.' This appeal challenges that ruling.
In order for the bill to have equity there must be a bona fide justiciable controversy between the parties cognizable in a court of equity and it is not permissible to plead by way of conclusion that such controversy existed between the parties, the requirement being that the facts must be pleaded to show such a controversy. Shadix v. City of Birmingham, 251 Ala. 610, 38 So.2d 851. Though the bill here is somewhat skimpy and is certainly not a model of perspicuity in meeting this test, we think the allegations sufficient to avert the criticism that the bill was without equity.
The facts show that the controversy is between complainant Brantley who claims title to decedent's land by a conveyance from Geneva Lyman, his sister and only heir at law, and the respondents (except Roberta Flowers, who it is averred is the widow of decedent and has abandoned her widow's rights in the property) who claim rights in the property respectively as grantees and as mortgagee from the said Ethel Flowers, his claimed widow. Clearly it appears from the allegations that there does exist an actual justiciable controversy as to who is the widow of said Flowers, deceased, the determination of which will determine substantial property rights of the opposing parties. This is within the rule of our cases permitting the proceeding.
We will not attempt to mark the bounds of relief which may be afforded under the Declaratory Judgments Act, Code 1940, Tit. 7, § 156 et seq., but will construe the act as applied to different situations as suggested in each appeal as it is presented. Teal v. Mixon, 233 Ala. 23, 169 So. 477.
It is enough to say here that the act is an enlargement of the powers of the court, Teal's case, supra, and since the amendment of the statute (whether wise or unwise) adding the provision that 'The remedy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howle v. Alabama State Milk Control Bd.
...3; Dozier v. Troy Drive In Theatres, Inc., 258 Ala. 417, 63 So.2d 368; Vinson v. Vinson, 256 Ala. 259, 54 So.2d 509; Brantley v. Flowers, 254 Ala. 448, 48 So.2d 532. However, an action for a declaratory judgment was never intended to be used as a substitute for an appeal. Ex parte State ex ......
-
Mooney v. Weaver, 2 Div. 322
... ... The lease was for a period of five years beginning on January 1, 1945, at an annual rental of $400, the first annual payment due on March ... 417, 63 So.2d 368; Wolff v. Woodruff, 258 Ala. 1, 61 So.2d 69; Brantley v. Flowers, 254 Ala. 448, 48 So.2d 532. We view the amendment as a ... ...
-
Vaughan v. Vaughan
...Jefferson County v. Johnson, 232 Ala. 406, 168 So. 450; Shadix v. City of Birmingham, 251 Ala. 610, 38 So.2d 851; Brantley v. Flowers, 254 Ala. 448, 48 So.2d 532. So that, we must decide whether after the death of W. G. Vaughan there was a justiciable controversy as to what was his marital ......
-
Penney v. Odom
...7, Code of 1940; Dozier v. Troy Drive In Theatres, 258 Ala. 417, 63 So.2d 368; Berman v. Wreck-A-Pair Bldg. Co., supra; Brantley v. Flowers, 254 Ala. 448, 48 So.2d 532. What we mean to say is that if the bill states the substance of a bona fide justiciable controversy which should be settle......