Culley v. Elford
| Decision Date | 16 April 1914 |
| Docket Number | 779 |
| Citation | 65 So. 381,187 Ala. 165 |
| Parties | CULLEY et al. v. ELFORD. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 21, 1914
Appeal from Chancery Court, Jefferson County; A.H. Benners Chancellor.
Suit by Catharine D. Elford against Felton T. Culley and others to confirm a sale of lands to complainant, and to divest whatever right or title defendants may have, and for general relief. From a decree granting relief to complainant defendants appeal. Reversed, and judgment rendered dismissing the bill.
It seems that the facts in the case were undisputed. Lots 9 and 10, block 39, Birmingham, were owned by Pfaffenschlager (formerly Mrs. Stone) at the time of her death in 1885. She left three daughters, who were all living, who are now Mildred G. Sides, Nannie J. Babb, and Mary D. Culley. Mrs Stone left a will, which was properly admitted to probate wherein the following disposition was made of her property:
"Item 1: To each of my daughters Nannie J., Mary D. and Mildred G. Stone, for and during the term of their natural life only to her separate and sole use, and free from the contracts, debts, liability or disposition of her husband, and from and immediately after her death to the issue of her body, living at the time of her death, share and share alike to them, their heirs and assigns, I give and devise one third of my plantation, situated near Warsaw in Sumter county, Alabama, containing about 720 acres."
Item 2 devises certain property to the husband during his life, with remainder in the daughters, as in item 1.
Item 3 conveys all other real estate to the three daughters upon the same terms and conditions as expressed in item 1.
Item 4 gives Mildred G. Stone $500, to be paid by the executor out of any personal property owned at the death of testator, and to be in addition to what she receives under the other items of the will. Item 5 gives to the three daughters, subject to the special legacy for Mildred G., ten shares of stock in the Gold Life Insurance Company, Mobile; also the policy for $5,000 in the People's Mutual Relief Association, Mobile.
By a codicil to the will the $500 bequeathed to Mildred Stone was to be expended for education, and, if Mildred refused to receive an education, the legacy was to be forfeited and returned to the estate, to be distributed as otherwise provided. The second item of the codicil gave authority to sell the plantation, and to execute deeds. The third item of the codicil gave to Mildred Stone corner lots 9 and 10, in block 31, Birmingham, Ala.; to Nannie J. Stone, lot 11 in said city; and to Mary G. Culley, lot 12, and, this lot being of less value that the other lots devised, and in order to equalize it, in addition to lot 12, Mary Culley is devised the house and lot in Pickensville, Ala.
"Qualifying these devises to my three daughters, I bequeath to each her share above devised for and during the term of her natural life only, to her sole and separate use, and free from the debts, liabilities and contracts or dispositions of their husbands, and from and immediately after her death to the issue of her body at the time of her death, to them their assigns and heirs forever."
Item 4 is as follows:
"Should either of my daughters die without an heir of her body, it is my will that the property devised to her by this will shall be equally divided between my surviving daughter, but should any of them die leaving heirs of their bodies, such heir or heirs shall take their mother's share to be equally divided among them."
In March, 1910, Mrs. Sides, who then had three children, all minors, filed her bill in chancery court, Jefferson county, against these minors and one Daniel Donahue, to whom she had given a mortgage on her life interest, setting up the fact of her ownership of this property for life, and alleging improvements of $4,600. The bill further alleges that it was a favorable time to sell said property and reinvest the proceeds so that the same would yield better revenue, and be preserved for the benefit of her children, and any other heirs who might be living at her death. The bill prayed for a sale for the purpose of reinvestment, and for the support and maintenance of the minors.
On the pleadings and proof the court ordered a sale of the lots owned by Mildred G. Stone, and at the sale Catharine Elford purchased the lot, which sale was confirmed and a deed ordered to be made, and the decree further provided for the reinvestment of the proceeds of the sale, and directed that the title to said land in which the funds should be invested should be taken in the name of Mildred G. Sides for her life, with remainder over to the issue of her body living at her death, and, should she die without an heir or heirs of her body, then the real estate be equally divided between her two sisters, etc.; it being the purpose of the court to give full force and effect to the will of the mother. At the time of the purchase Mrs. Rabb, one of the sisters, had only one heir, a daughter over 21 years old, and the other sister Mrs. Culley had six children, four of whom were of age, and two minors. After her purchase of this property at said sale Catharine Elford received a deed from Mrs. Rabb and her daughter and Mrs. Culley and her adult children. This bill was filed against the minor heirs of Mrs. Culley by Mrs. Elford, alleging her purchase of this property at said sale, as well as the fact that she had obtained the deeds above mentioned from all the parties at interest, except the minors, and praying the court to confirm the sale, and to divest out of said minors all right, title, or interest they might have or hereafter acquire in said lot.
Fergus W. McCarthy, of Birmingham, for appellants.
Edward T. Rice, A.C. & H.R. Howze, James A. Mitchell, Haley & Haley, and W.T. Hill, all of Birmingham, for appellee.
The pleadings and the facts upon which was based the decree under review will be stated in the report of the case. A fair statement of them in a general way will be found in the brief of the guardian ad litem for appellants.
About the propriety of the decree under which appelle...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powell v. Pearson
... ... by law. This statute declares that there must be an ... "interest therein." ... The ... case of Culley v. Elford, 187 Ala. 165, 172, 65 So ... 381, 384, considered a will that devised to three daughters ... for life only, and recited that "from and ... ...
-
Mudd v. Lanier
... ... the property.' ... A ... remainder is more than a mere expectancy. Culley v ... Elford, 187 Ala. 165(3), 65 So. 381. A landowner's ... next of kin have a mere expectancy and cannot complain of his ... alleged fraud in ... ...
-
Braley v. Spragins, 8 Div. 153.
...627, 52 So. 746; Crawford v. Carlisle, 206 Ala. 379, 384, 89 So. 565. In Powell v. Pearson (Ala. Sup.) 125 So. 39, 49, Culley v. Elford, 187 Ala. 165, 172, 65 So. 381, cited with approval, as follows: "The case of Culley v. Elford, 187 Ala. 165, 172, 65 So. 381, 384, considered a will that ......
-
Brickell v. Lightcap
...served with process. Story's Equity Pleading, section 149; Cannon v. Barry, 59 Miss. 289; Prewett v. Land, 36 Miss. 495; Culley v. Elford, 187 Ala. 165, 65 So. 381; Farr v. Gilreath, 23 S.C. 4. John F. and Virginia Powell, as the mere annuitants, being legatees with a charge upon the proper......