Hooks v. Hooks
Decision Date | 26 February 1953 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 464 |
Parties | HOOKS v. HOOKS. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Silberman & Silberman, Birmingham, for appellant.
Adams & Adams, Birmingham, for appellee.
The appeal in this case is from a decree of the Circuit Court, in Equity, of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, in which the court overruled the demurrers as amended to the bill of complaint.
The facts are taken from the statement of the case in brief of appellant, as follows:
'The facts are that on June 6, 1951 the appellee filed the bill against the appellant to have a resulting trust declared in appellee's favor for a one-half interest in certain real estate. Appellee in her bill of complaint avers that in 1945 on Mette Helene Hutchinson conveyed the full interest in the said real estate jointly to appellee and her son, the appellant; that prior to to-wit, January 9, 1945, the appellee contracted the agent of the grantor, and made arrangements with the said agent, one Oliver Henderson, an attorney-at-law of Birmingham, Alabama, to purchase said real estate for $1700.00, being $500.00 cash and the execution of a purchase money mortgage to secure the additional $1200.00 and the signing of forty-eight notes in the total amount of $1200.00. Appellee further averred that she paid $100.00 at said time and then later on to-wit, January 9, 1945, paid the additional $400.00 and that she, together with the appellant, signed the note and mortgage to secure the balance of the purchase price; that on said date, when the $400.00 was paid the appellee, together with her husband and the appellant were present in the office of the said Oliver Henderson; that at the time, the appellant requested his name be placed on the deed and that the appellee, being ignorant of real estate matters and having no reason to distrust the appellant, who is her son, 'did not say anything' but that it was then and there understood that the appellee was the purchaser and was to be the sole owner of the said property and that no gift was intended to be made to the appellant of any part of the property or any interest therein and that the appellant did not claim to be the owner of any part of said property or any interest therein and that it was not intended at said time that the appellant was to be the owner of said property or any interest therein.
In J. A. Owens & Co. v. Blanks, 225 Ala. 566, 144 So. 35, 36, the Court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brousseau v. Brousseau
...gifts, the challenger must prove the lack of donative intent by clear and convincing evidence. See, e.g., Hooks v. Hooks, 258 Ala. 427, 63 So.2d 348, 350 (1953); Judgment Servs. Corp. v. Sullivan, 321 Ill. App.3d 151, 254 Ill.Dec. 70, 746 N.E.2d 827, 831 (2001); Prange v. Prange, 755 S.W.2d......
-
Henslee v. Merritt
...Rodgers v. Thornton, 254 Ala. 66, 46 So.2d 809; Merchants Nat. Bank of Mobile v. Bertolla, 245 Ala. 662, 18 So.2d 378; Hooks v. Hooks, 258 Ala. Sup. 427, 63 So.2d 348.' The principal witness for appellee, Lola Henslee, in establishing the fact that it was her money which was paid in purchas......
-
Perryman v. Pugh, 6 Div. 988
...* * *' While there is a presumption that the husband intended a gift to his wife, such presumption may be overcome. Hooks v. Hooks, 258 Ala. 427, 430, 63 So.2d 348; Marshall v. Marshall, 243 Ala. 169, 171, 8 So.2d 843; Montgomery v. McNutt, 214 Ala. 692, 694, 108 So. 752. We think the alleg......
-
Webb v. Webb
...At the time the husband deeded the real property to the wife, the title was in him and had been in him since 1935. In Hooks v. Hooks, 258 Ala. 427, 63 So.2d 348, 350, the following from J. A. Owens & Co. v. Blanks, 225 Ala. 566, 144 So. 35, is quoted with 'A resulting trust, the holding of ......