Holmes v. Riley
Decision Date | 06 June 1940 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 644. |
Citation | 196 So. 888,240 Ala. 96 |
Parties | HOLMES v. RILEY ET AL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 29, 1940.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County; Henry B. Foster Judge.
Bill in equity by Lillian Merrymon Riley, Della Merrymon Worthington James C. Merrymon and Robert Belton Merrymon against Lula Merrymon Holmes (all children of B. F. Merrymon, deceased) to cancel a deed to real property, and to sell the property for distribution of the proceeds, or, in the alternative, to reform the deed and impress a trust upon a portion of the property. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill respondent appeals.
Affirmed.
C. H. Penick, Reuben H. Wright, and Ward W. McFarland, all of Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
DeGraffenreid & McDuffie, of Tuscaloosa, for appellees.
This appeal is from an interlocutory decree of the circuit court, sitting in equity, overruling the defendant's demurrer to the bill, as last amended, filed by appellees as heirs at law of B. F. Merrymon, deceased, against Merrymon's grantee, his daughter, in a deed executed by him February 26, 1937, conveying to her real property situated in Tuscaloosa County.
In one aspect the bill seeks a cancellation of the deed, a sale of the property for distribution of the proceeds of such sale to the heirs at law of Merrymon as their interest may be fixed by the statutes of descent and distribution. In another aspect the bill seeks a reformation of the deed so as to leave the title to the dwelling house in which the defendant was living at the time said deed was made to her, and impress the other property with a trust in favor of the complainants.
The demurrer takes the point that the bill does not aver that the complainants and the respondent are all the heirs at law; that the complainants have an adequate remedy at law; that it does not allege that the complainants are in possession, and does not allege that the deed did not give effect to the purpose and intention of the parties through mutual mistake, and others, too numerous to mention.
The bill, as originally filed, alleges that at the time of the execution of the deed
The bill was amended by adding the following averments:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nelson Realty Co. v. Darling Shop of Birmingham, Inc.
...399; Harper v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., 240 Ala. 472, 199 So. 699; Bankhead v. Jackson, 257 Ala. 131, 57 So.2d 609; and Holmes v. Riley, 240 Ala. 96, 196 So. 888. However, the court in the consideration of the above cases was not concerned with fraud which entered into the inducement of t......
-
Ellis v. Stickney
... ... 513, 179 So. 520; Dyer v ... Conway et al., 236 Ala. 347, 182 So. 43; Thompson v ... Heiter et al., 238 Ala. 549, 192 So. 282; Holmes v ... Riley et al., 240 Ala. 96, 196 So. 888; Finlay v ... Kennedy, 250 Ala. 33, 32 So.2d 883; Betts et al. v ... Betts, 250 Ala. 479, 35 So.2d ... ...
-
Cook v. Cook
...synonymous, fraud is a form of undue influence and undue influence is generally considered to be a species of fraud. Holmes v. Riley, 240 Ala. 96, 196 So. 888, 890 (1940); Shirley v. Ezell, 180 Ala. 352, 60 So. 905, 907 (1913). Requested charges which would tend to mislead or confuse the ju......
-
Scott v. Leigeber
...888; Wall v. Hill's Heirs, 1 B.Mon., Ky., 290, 36 Am.Dec. 578. And under such circumstances, equity will not ordinarily grant relief. Holmes v. Riley, supra; Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, Ala. 279, 30 So. 578; White v. Hale, 234 Ala. 385, 175 So. 288. The bill alleges that complainant's grantee, ......