Graham v. Graham
Decision Date | 13 June 1918 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 339 |
Citation | 202 Ala. 56,79 So. 450 |
Parties | GRAHAM et al. v. GRAHAM et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 29, 1918
Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Gaston Gunter, Judge.
Suit by D.M. Graham and another against Peter H. Graham and others. From the decree rendered defendants appeal. Affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded.
W.P McGaugh, of Montgomery, and Eugene Ballard, of Prattville for appellants.
W.A Gunter, of Montgomery, for appellees.
This bill is filed by two of the six children and heirs at law of Mildred R. Graham, deceased, against the others, praying for a sale of lands in Autauga and Montgomery counties for partition. Other parties claiming the right to stand in the shoes of some of the heirs as to parts of the property are made defendants, and as against them incidental and collateral relief is prayed. Demurrers to the bill in its entirety and to parts thereof were overruled in the court below, and defendants have taken this appeal.
Complainants claim title by inheritance from their mother, Mildred R. Graham, while defendants claim through William A. Graham, deceased, husband of Mildred R. and father of the six children aforesaid. Complainants aver title to the lands in Autauga as follows:
The mortgage to Sims as trustee recited an indebtedness of William A. Graham, Sr., to his wife, Mildred R., in the sum of $10,000 on account of her share in her father's estate, which had been received by her husband, and by him converted to his own use, and provided for a foreclosure in the event of nonpayment. The stipulation of the concluding clause of the instrument was that:
"The said sum of money so by him [the trustee] received for my said wife [as the result of a foreclosure], he shall hold for the sole use and benefit of my said wife to be invested in any manner or disposed of as my said wife may direct in writing."
Notwithstanding the foregoing averments of the bill, among the rest "that at the maturity of said mortgage debt the said property embraced therein, herein sought to be sold for partition, was turned over by said trustee to the said Mildred R. Graham, and she went into possession thereof, and so remained by consent of said trustee in her possession as the owner of said property from the maturity of said mortgage to her death in 1908," appellees say in their brief that:
The demurrer takes the point that the averments of the bill are too vague, indefinite, uncertain, and contradictory to support the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hendley v. First Nat. Bank
...the question to the contrary result from that reached and announced on the original hearing in the case at bar. The case of Graham v. Graham, 202 Ala. 56, 79 So. 450; Id., 205 Ala. 644, 89 So. 25, 26, was a bill by two of children and heirs at law of Mildred R. Graham, deceased, against the......
-
Patterson v. Weaver
...107, 85 So. 440; Heflin v. Heflin, 208 Ala. 69, 74, 93 So. 719; Spencer v. Hurd, 201 Ala. 269, 77 So. 683, 1 A.L.R. 761; Graham v. Graham, 202 Ala. 56, 79 So. 450. doctrine is such presumption can only be used as a shield and not for affirmative relief. Rankin v. Dean, 157 Ala. 490, 47 So. ......
- Graham v. Graham
-
Staten v. Shumate
...debt has been fully paid. Patterson v. Weaver, 216 Ala. 686, 114 So. 301; Bromberg v. Hoffman, 207 Ala. 144, 92 So. 114; Graham v. Graham, 202 Ala. 56, 79 So. 450; Spencer v. Hurd, 201 Ala. 269, 77 So. 683, 1 761, and the title settled in the mortgagor. Scott v. Scott, supra. If the debt is......