Burt v. Brandon

Decision Date28 February 1935
Docket Number7 Div. 297.
PartiesBURT et al. v. BRANDON.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, De Kalb County; A. E. Hawkins, Judge.

Bill to reform a deed by H. H. Brandon, as administrator of the estate of R. A. Burt, deceased, against Grover C. Burt and others. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill respondents appeal.

Affirmed.

Scott &amp Dawson, of Fort Payne, for appellants.

Haralson & Son, of Fort Payne, for appellee.

BROWN Justice.

The bill in this case was filed by appellee, H. H. Brandon, as the administrator of the estate of R. A. Burt, who died on March 21, 1933, against Grover C. Burt, Mrs. Ruby Garner Mrs. Mabel Martin, and Mrs. Sarah Fowler, to reform a deed executed by the said R. A. Burt to the defendants on the 28th of August, 1919, conveying to the said Grover C. Burt a life estate, and to the other defendants the remainder in fifty-six acres of land, specifically described in the bill and evidencing an intent to reserve in the grantor the title to three acres of land "off the N.E. of the N.E. (N. E 1/4 of N.E. 1/4) of Section 3, Township 8, Range 8, in De Kalb County, Alabama."

The bill as amended alleges that said R. A. Burt left surviving his widow, Corrina R. Burt, and three sons, Henry Burt, Edgar Burt, and the defendant Grover C. Burt, all of full age; that upon the delivery of said deed the grantor delivered to the said Grover C. Burt the possession of all the lands intended to be conveyed, and he assumed possession thereof; that the possession of said three acres was not so delivered, but that said R. A. Burt retained the possession thereof up until his death; that the said R. A. Burt, at the time of his death, owed debts which are claims against his estate; that the property which he left at his death is not sufficient to pay the debts of said estate without a sale of said three acres of land attempted to be reserved by him in said deed; that said three acres were not a part of the homestead of said R. A. Burt, occupied by him at the time of his death.

The widow and the two sons, Henry and Edgar Burt, are not made parties.

The defendants demurred to the bill on the grounds, among others, for want of equity, and that the widow and heirs of R. A. Burt are not made parties to the bill. The court entered a decree overruling the demurrer, and the appeal is from that decree.

The sole contention here is that the widow, Mrs. Corrina R. Burt, and Henry and Edgar Burt are necessary parties to the bill, and that this question is ruled by the case of O'Rear v. O'Rear et al., 219 Ala. 419, 122 So. 645.

It is well settled that the absence of necessary or proper parties will not be noticed on an appeal from a decree sustaining or overruling demurrers to a bill in equity, unless the question is raised by specific demurrer; that a general demurrer for want of equity does not present the question. Baisden v. City of Greenville, 215 Ala. 512, 111 So. 2; Carwile, et al. v. Crump et al., 165 Ala. 206, 51 So. 744.

And to this end the demurrer must point out by name the party not joined. Chambers v. Wright, 52 Ala. 444; Singo et al. v. Brainard, 173 Ala. 64, 55 So. 603; Hall v. Holly et al.,

220 Ala. 597, 127 So. 164.

The rule is otherwise when the hearing is on submission for a final decree on the merits, or the appeal is from such final decree, where it may be raised by the parties in argument, or noticed ex mero motu by the court. Prout v. Hoge, 57 Ala. 28, 32; Carwile et al. v. Crump et al., supra.

When the opinion of the court in O'Rear v. O'Rear et al., 219 Ala. 419, 122 So. 645, is interpreted in the light of this rule and the text of 23 R. C. L. page 359 cited in that case, founded on the opinion of this court in West, Oliver & Co. v. Snodgrass, 17 Ala. 549, it goes deeper than a question of nonjoinder of parties. Its effect is that a bill filed by the personal representative-the executors of the will of a deceased person-to reform a deed, and correct the description of the property intended to be conveyed thereby, on the facts averred in that bill, it was without equity, in that it failed to show that such personal representative had such title or interest in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Clark v. Young
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • November 24, 1944
    ... ... necessary parties to the proceeding. Sovereign Camp. W ... O. W., v. Snider, 227 Ala. 126, 148 So. 831; Burt et ... al. v. Brandon, 230 Ala. 85, 159 So. 691 ... Under ... the facts stated in the decree, Clark, the custodian of the ... key to ... ...
  • Easterling v. Cleckler
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • October 29, 1959
    ...the deed, the right to prosecute the suit to final judgment is not defeated. Holder v. Taylor, 233 Ala. 477, 172 So. 761; Burt v. Brandon, 230 Ala. 85, 159 So. 691; McDowell v. Herren, 219 Ala. 370, 122 So. 336; DeVeer v. Pierson, 222 Mass. 167, 178, 110 N.E. 154, 159; 1 C.J.S. Abatement an......
  • Courington v. Kilgore
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 12, 1956
    ...173 Ala. 64, 55 So. 603; Baisden v. City of Greenville, 215 Ala. 512, 111 So. 2; Hogan v. Bailey, 234 Ala. 64, 173 So. 605; Burt v. Brandon, 230 Ala. 85, 159 So. 691. LIVINGSTON, C. J., and GOODWYN and MAYFIELD, JJ., concur. ...
  • Allgood v. Bains
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • May 9, 1946
    ...represents the interest of the estate, which includes the interests of the distributees, as well as that of the creditors. Burt et al. v. Brandon, supra; Boyte v. supra. The next question is whether or not the bill is multifarious. The mere fact that in addition to asking for a removal of t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT