Cook v. Cook
| Decision Date | 17 April 1900 |
| Citation | 125 Ala. 583,27 So. 918 |
| Parties | COOK v. COOK. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Madison county.
Action by Hassie M. Cook against Isaac M. Cook. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
This was a statutory action of ejectment brought by the appellee Hassie M. Cook, against the appellant, Isaac M. Cook, to recover a certain lot in the town of Newmarket, Madison county, Ala., which was specifically described in the complaint. Upon issue joined upon the plea of the general issue, the plaintiff offered in evidence a deed bearing date August 6, 1888, which was properly executed, and conveyed the legal title to the premises sued for. It was further shown that at the time of the trial the defendant was in the actual possession of the house and lot involved in the suit, and had refused to surrender possession thereof upon demand of the plaintiff. The evidence for the defendant showed that at the time of the institution of the suit, and for a long time prior thereto, the plaintiff was the wife of the defendant that the house and lot sued for had been jointly occupied by the plaintiff and the defendant with their children as a homestead for many years before the institution of the suit that about one year prior to the bringing of the suit a difference arose between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the plaintiff went to reside with her sister, who lived a short distance from the house formerly occupied by them, and demanded of the defendant that he should vacate the house and lot, and turn over the possession of the house to her; that the defendant refused to do this, but offered no objection to the plaintiff's re-entry into the premises when she so desired, and to occupy it jointly with him. It was further shown by the evidence of the defendant that the house and lot was the homestead of the family of the plaintiff and the defendant, and that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant had any other homestead. This was substantially all of the evidence introduced on the trial. The court, at the request of the plaintiff, gave the general affirmative charge in her behalf, and refused to give the general affirmative charge requested by the defendant. To each of these rulings the defendant separately excepted. There were verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals, and assigns as error the giving of the general affirmative charge requested by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. State
...While this is an issue of first impression in this state, there is case law which tends to support our holding. In Cook v. Cook, 125 Ala. 583, 584-85, 27 So. 918 (1900), the Alabama Supreme Court "That a wife must sue alone for the recovery of her separate property is expressly provided by ......
-
Slansky v. Slansky
...against. See Owens v. Owens (1959), 38 Del.Ch. 220, 149 A.2d 320; Hall v. Hall (1951), 193 Tenn. 74, 241 S.W.2d 919; Cook v. Cook (1900), 125 Ala. 583, 27 So. 918; Buckingham v. Buckingham (1890), 81 Mich. 89, 45 N.W. If a forcible entry and detainer action were not available to the plainti......
-
Owens v. Auto Mut. Indemnity Co.
... ... Bruce, 95 Ala. 563, 565, 11 So. 197; Strength v ... Thornton, 19 Ala.App. 475, 98 So. 206; for recovery of ... her realty, Cook v. Cook, 125 Ala. 583, 27 So. 918, ... 82 Am.St.Rep. 264; and for a wilful assault and battery in ... Johnson v. Johnson, 201 Ala. 41, 77 So. 335, ... ...
-
Edmonds v. Edmonds
...case. In the second line of decisions referred to no inferences are drawn in the interest of "marital rights." In a leading case (Cook v. Cook, 125 Ala. 583, 27 South. 918, 82 Am. St. Rep. 264) in which the facts were similar to the instant case, and in construing a statute similar to ours ......