Carter v. Davis
Decision Date | 30 May 1963 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 909 |
Citation | 275 Ala. 250,154 So.2d 9 |
Parties | Gertrude D. CARTER et al. v. Robert H. DAVIS. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Earl D. Hendon, Birmingham, for appellants.
Drennen, Leob & Drennen, Birmingham, for appellee.
Mrs. Annie B. Davis, a resident of Dade County, Florida, died in that State on 7 February 1960. Among other assets Mrs. Davis owned real estate in Birmingham, Alabama, at the time of her death.
Her will was duly admitted to probate by the Probate Court of Dade County, Florida, on 15 February 1960, and letters testamentary were issued to Robert H. Davis, Sr., named in the will as sole executor thereof.
We note that Mrs. Davis' will was witnessed by seven witnesses.
On 15 April 1960, Robert H. Davis filed a petition in the Probate Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, asking that the will of Annie B. Davis be admitted to probate in Alabama, certified copies of the proceedings admitting said will to probate in Florida being attached as exhibits to the petition. Thereafter, on 30 September 1960, the Probate Court of Jefferson County entered an order admitting the will to probate in Alabama.
All of the proceedings in Alabama were had and done in accordance with Section 46, of Title 61, Code of Alabama 1940, pertaining to the probation of wills in Alabama of residents of other states or territories of the United States, when such will has been probated in the state of residence of the deceased.
Thereafter, the appellants, who are daughters of Annie B. Davis, filed a bill in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County in Equity, seeking to contest the validity of the will. The grounds of invalidity asserted were that the will was the result of undue influence, and further, that the testatrix was of unsound mind at the time of the execution of the will.
The chancellor sustained the appellee's demurrer to the bill, and dismissed it. This appeal is from that order.
Section 46, supra, provides among other things that when a testator was not at the time of his death an inhabitant of this State, but was an inhabitant of a state or territory of the United States, and his will has been proved in the state or territory of his residence, the will may be admitted to probate in this State by presentation to the proper Probate Judge of a copy of such will authenticated as provided by Section 905 of the revised statutes of the United States. Upon presentation of such authenticated will the Probate Judge shall, without notice, enter a decree admitting such will to probate.
It is further provided in Section 46, supra, that if the will has been admitted to probate elsewhere than in a state or territory of the United States, and such will purports to dispose of real or personal property situated in Alabama, such wills are required to be probated in the courts of Alabama, and are subject to be contested in the same manner as wills offered for original probate in the courts of this State.
In Brock's Administrator v. Frank, 51 Ala. 85, in writing to the precursor of Section 46, supra, which precursor was in all material respects substantially similar to Section 46, supra, Justice Stone wrote:
The appellants contend, however, that by virtue of Section 64, Title 61, Code of Alabama 1940, they are entitled to contest the will of Annie B. Davis in the equity court. This section provides:
'Any person interested in any will, who has not contested the same under the provisions of this article, may, at any time, within the six months after the admission of such will to probate in this state, contest the validity of the same by bill in equity * * * in the county in which such will was probated.'
Prior to the enactment of Section 64, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Segrest v. Segrest
...We have no doubt that this was the intention of the statute." Knox v. Paull, 95 Ala. at 507-10, 11 So. at 157-58.In Carter v. Davis, 275 Ala. 250, 154 So. 2d 9 (1963), this Court noted that the predecessor statute to § 43-8-199 created a new substantive and independent right that is a statu......
-
Daniel v. Moye, 1140819 1140820.
...that § 43–8–199 was enacted to provide an additional opportunity for contesting a will already admitted to probate. Carter v. Davis, 275 Ala. 250, 154 So.2d 9 (1963). Furthermore, the dismissal of a complaint is not proper if the pleading contains ‘even a generalized statement of facts whic......
- U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hodges
-
Bullen v. Brown
...that § 43-8-199 was enacted to provide an additional opportunity for contesting a will already admitted to probate. Carter v. Davis, 275 Ala. 250, 154 So.2d 9 (1963). Furthermore, the dismissal of a complaint is not proper if the pleading contains 'even a generalized statement of facts whic......