Chancellor v. Teel
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | HARALSON, J. |
| Citation | 37 So. 665,141 Ala. 634 |
| Parties | CHANCELLOR v. TEEL ET AL. |
| Decision Date | 29 November 1904 |
37 So. 665
141 Ala. 634
CHANCELLOR
v.
TEEL ET AL.
Supreme Court of Alabama
November 29, 1904
Appeal from Chancery Court, Pike County; Jere N. Williams, Chancellor.
Suit by Saphronia Chancellor against A. L. Teel and others. Decree for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
The bill as originally filed was filed by the appellant, Saphronia Chancellor, against A. L. Teel and Tidy Pennington. The bill alleges that the complainant is the daughter of Arnold Teel, deceased, and that respondents A. L. Teel and Tidy Pennington, are the children of said Arnold Teel, deceased, and that they, the three above named, are the only children and heirs at law of the said Arnold Teel; that their mother died prior to the death of Arnold Teel, and that he never married again. It is further alleged that Arnold Teel died intestate a few months prior to the filing of the bill in August, 1894; that at the time of his death he owed no debts for which his estate was liable; that there had been no administration of his estate, and that none is necessary. It is further alleged that Arnold Teel at the time of his death owned certain personal property which is described in the bill, and it is alleged that this property was disposed of or converted by A. L. Teel with the aid and consent of Mrs. Pennington, and that the proceeds were divided between them, or that said property was converted by them to their own use. The bill also contains a number of interrogatories propounded to each of the two respondents. The bill is verified, and prays for the appointment of a receiver, without notice, and seeks to have the money and property referred to and described in the bill decreed to be the property of Arnold Teel, deceased, at the time of his death, and the prayer is for a personal decree against respondents, and for the fastening of a lien on the property of the respondents and a subjection of the same to the payment of the amount ascertained to be due to complainant as her one-third interest in the estate of her father. The chancellor appointed a receiver without notice to the respondents.
The respondents filed an answer, which was verified, specifically denying that the property described and referred to in the bill belonged to Arnold Teel at the time of his death; also denying that he had any property or estate at the time of his death. The answer further set out that the property described in the bill belonged to Palestine Teel, the wife of A. L. Teel, and attached, as exhibits to the answer, deeds describing property conveyed to Palestine Teel. The answer further averred that the money, cotton, and other property referred to in the bill was property which had been given or conveyed to Palestine Teel by Arnold Teel, or was property which was the proceeds of crops raised upon the lands of Palestine Teel.
Palestine Teel and A. L. Teel made a motion to discharge the receiver on the verified answer to A. L. Teel and Tidy Pennington, and on the affidavits of Palestine Teel and A. L. Teel. Upon the hearing of the motion a decree was rendered discharging the receiver.
The bill as originally filed was amended by making Palestine Teel a party defendant; also by averring that Arnold Teel at the time of his death was the owner of a large amount of real estate, referred to as being described in the deeds attached, as Exhibits A and B, to the answer of A. L. Teel to the original bill. The bill of complaint, as amended, alleges that Palestine Teel is the wife of A. L. Teel, the daughter-in-law of Arnold Teel, deceased. The amendment further avers that Palestine Teel sets up claim to the money and property described in the original bill and in the bill as amended, and avers that A. L. Teel disposed of the cotton, money, and certain property referred to in the bill as amended, with the aid and consent of Palestine Teel, and divided the same with his sister, Tidy alias Vashti, Pennington. The bill as amended seeks to have the property and money referred to decreed to be the property of Arnold Teel, and seeks a cancellation of a claim of Palestine Teel to said money and property, and prays that she and her property be held to account for and be charged with such amounts and property as she has taken or disposed of. The bill also seeks a personal decree against the respondents, A. L. Teel and Mrs. Pennington, for the money and property alleged to have been used and converted by them to their own use, and it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andrews v. Grey, 7 Div. 847
...submitted issue of fact, from evidence given viva voce, or from pleadings before him (Bidwell v. Johnson, 70 So. 685; Chancellor v. Teel, 141 Ala. 634, 37 So. 665; Pollard v. Mortgage Co., 139 Ala. 183, 35 So. 767; Faulk & Co. v. Hobbie Grocery Co., 178 Ala. 254, 59 So. 450; Roy v. O'Neill,......
-
Grand Bay Land Co. v. Simpson, 1 Div. 219
...not be disturbed. The rule applies both to the trial judge, and, on appeal from his decision, to the Supreme Court. Chancellor v. Teel, 141 Ala. 634, 37 So. 665; Bidwell v. Johnson, 195 Ala. 547, 70 So. 685, and many authorities there collected. Of the respective assignments of error by app......
-
Walker v. Coley, 1 Div. 651
...of his possession and render it adverse to the grantee. 2 C. J. 143; Daniels v. Williams, 177 Ala. 140, 58 So. 419; Chancellor v. Teel, 141 Ala. 634, 37 So. 665; Ivey v. Beddingfield, 107 Ala. 616, 18 So. 139.' Alabama Power Co. v. Rodgers, 222 Ala. 571, 573, 133 So. 584, There is another p......
-
Fricke v. City of Guntersville, 8 Div. 550
...of the jury and to have a new trial. Pollard v. American Freehold Land Mortgage Co., 139 Ala. 183, 35 So. 767; Chancellor v. Teel et al., 141 Ala. 634, 37 So. 665; Bidwell v. Johnson, 195 Ala. 547, 70 So. 685; Smith v. Albert, 247 Ala. 520, 25 So.2d 382; Campbell v. Campbell, 252 Ala. 487, ......
-
Andrews v. Grey, 7 Div. 847
...submitted issue of fact, from evidence given viva voce, or from pleadings before him (Bidwell v. Johnson, 70 So. 685; Chancellor v. Teel, 141 Ala. 634, 37 So. 665; Pollard v. Mortgage Co., 139 Ala. 183, 35 So. 767; Faulk & Co. v. Hobbie Grocery Co., 178 Ala. 254, 59 So. 450; Roy v. O'Neill,......
-
Grand Bay Land Co. v. Simpson, 1 Div. 219
...not be disturbed. The rule applies both to the trial judge, and, on appeal from his decision, to the Supreme Court. Chancellor v. Teel, 141 Ala. 634, 37 So. 665; Bidwell v. Johnson, 195 Ala. 547, 70 So. 685, and many authorities there collected. Of the respective assignments of error by app......
-
Walker v. Coley, 1 Div. 651
...of his possession and render it adverse to the grantee. 2 C. J. 143; Daniels v. Williams, 177 Ala. 140, 58 So. 419; Chancellor v. Teel, 141 Ala. 634, 37 So. 665; Ivey v. Beddingfield, 107 Ala. 616, 18 So. 139.' Alabama Power Co. v. Rodgers, 222 Ala. 571, 573, 133 So. 584, There is another p......
-
Fricke v. City of Guntersville, 8 Div. 550
...of the jury and to have a new trial. Pollard v. American Freehold Land Mortgage Co., 139 Ala. 183, 35 So. 767; Chancellor v. Teel et al., 141 Ala. 634, 37 So. 665; Bidwell v. Johnson, 195 Ala. 547, 70 So. 685; Smith v. Albert, 247 Ala. 520, 25 So.2d 382; Campbell v. Campbell, 252 Ala. 487, ......