Ellis v. Crawson

• Citation: 41 So. 942,147 Ala. 294
• Parties: ELLIS ET AL. v. CRAWSON.
• Decision Date: 30 June 1906
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

41 So. 942

147 Ala. 294

ELLIS ET AL. v. CRAWSON.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 30, 1906

Appeal from Chancery Court, Jefferson County; A. H. Benners Chancellor.

"To be officially reported."

Suit by Florence Crawson against Bessie Ellis and others. From a decree overruling demurrers to the complaint, defendants appeal. Reversed and rendered.

This was a bill filed by Florence Crawson by her next friend against Bessie Ellis et al. seeking to have declared null and void and set aside a paper writing purporting to be the last will and testament of Martha Laws, and also seeking to have declared null and void all the proceedings in the probate court admitting said alleged paper writing to probate as the last will of said Martha Laws; also seeking to have declared the rights of complainant in the property mentioned therein to wit, a one-third interest; also seeking to have a deed from William Laws to Bessie Ellis and Joe Ellis conveying said property to them declared a cloud upon complainant's title, and to set aside and annul the same; it also seeks injunction against all the respondents, their agents, and attorneys to restrain them from selling, disposing of, or otherwise interfering with the property, and for a receiver to take charge of the same. The facts made by the bill were as follows: Complainant is a minor, and the only heir at law of a sister of Martha Laws. That on the 19th day of March 1903, Martha Laws died, leaving no child or children, but leaving a husband, William Laws, and the following next of kin. (Here follows a list of next of kin including the mother of complainant, who is alleged to have died before Martha Laws.) That Martha Laws left at the time of her death certain real estate and personal property as described in the bill. It is further alleged that Martha Laws left no will, and made no disposition of her property, but that soon after her death her husband, William Laws, presented to the probate court of Jefferson county a paper writing purporting to be the last will and testament of said Martha Laws, which was duly admitted to probate. That by said alleged will all of the property was left to the husband, and in the said paper writing the husband was nominated as executor without bond. The bill further alleges "that said paper writing was not the will of said Martha Laws, that the same was procured by the fraud and misrepresentation of William Laws and one Joe Ellis. But notwithstanding this the said William Laws by fraud and misrepresentation procured the said paper writing to be probated by the probate court of Jefferson county Ala., in May, 1903, as and for the last will and testament of Martha Laws. Complainant avers that the probating of said will or paper writing as the will of Martha Laws was obtained by the fraud and misrepresentation of William Laws and one Joe Ellis. * * * Complainant further avers that at the time the said paper writing is alleged to have been executed by said Martha Laws she was mentally unable to execute a will or to make any disposition of her property, besides she did not intend or attempt to do so, but that the whole paper writing purporting to be her last will and testament was prepared and her name signed thereto by a mark by one Joe Ellis without the knowledge or consent of said Martha Laws but by the fraud and procurement of William Laws and Joe Ellis, and that the paper writing was written out by Joe Ellis, and the witnesses' names attached thereto were signed by Joe Ellis." The bill also alleges that complainant was not legally represented during any of the probate proceedings admitting the will to probate. That after the will was admitted to probate, William Laws took charge of the property, and on the 8th day of June, 1904, executed a deed to the property to Bessie Ellis and Joe Ellis, Jr., minor children of Joe Ellis above referred to, reserving the use and benefit of the same to himself during his life. The bill also alleges that this deed was without consideration, and that the will was not signed by two witnesses. There was motion to dismiss the bill for want of equity which was overruled. The defendant then demurred to the bill and the averments thereof as being inconsistent and repugnant...