Jackson v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 11 May 1888 |
| Parties | JACKSON v. JACKSON ET AL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from chancery court, Lauderdale county; THOMAS COBBS Chancellor.
Bill in equity, in which Felix E. Jackson and another, administrators of Aristides E. Jackson, were complainants, and Elizabeth Jackson, widow of Aristides E. Jackson, was defendant, to enjoin an action at law brought by the said Elizabeth Jackson against Jackson Bros. for money which she had deposited with them, and which she claimed as a gift from her husband. The chancellor refused to dissolve the temporary injunction, and defendant appeals. Code,§ 2610, referred to, provides that a defendant against whom an action is pending for the recovery of money may, at any time before issue joined, make affidavit that a person not a party to the suit, without collusion with him, claims the money in controversy, and thereupon such person shall be made a party defendant. Code § 2611, contains similar provisions in case of a suit for the recovery of specific chattels.
O'Neal & O'Neal and McClellan & McClellan, for appellant.
Simpson & Jones, for appellees.
Aristides E. Jackson died intestate in January, 1887, and in March afterwards the appellees were appointed administrators of his estate. Felix E. Jackson and Andrew Jackson were partners in trade in the firm name of Jackson Bros. Soon after the death of intestate, Mrs. Elizabeth Jackson, his widow, deposited with Jackson Bros. $800, as of her own money, and took their receipt thereof. Subsequently she demanded the money of them, but they refused to pay it to her, on the ground, as they alleged, that the money was claimed as part of the assets of the estate of the intestate, and was not hers. She thereupon instituted an action at law against them for the recovery of the money she had so deposited with them. Felix E. Jackson, one of the administrators, is the same Felix E. Jackson who is a member of the firm of Jackson Bros. The present bill was filed by the administrators. It asserts that said money is the property of the estate of Aristides E. Jackson, that Mrs. Jackson claims it under an alleged gift made by her husband to her in his life-time, denies that such gift was made, and prays an injunction against her suit at law. It charges that she is insolvent. A temporary injunction was awarded. The foot-note waives answer under oath. Mrs. Jackson filed a sworn answer. She admitted that, without the $880, she is insolvent. She denies the averments of the bill that she took the money without authority, and avers that her husband gave it to her in his life-time. She demurred to the bill, mainly on the ground that complainants had an adequate remedy at law, to be particularly noticed further on. A motion was made to dissolve the injunction,- First, for the want of equity in the bill; and, second, on the denials contained in the answer. The chancellor overruled the motion to dissolve, and from that ruling the present appeal is prosecuted. We will first consider the question of the denials in the answer.
When the bill avers facts the burden of proving which is entirely on complainant, then, if the sworn answer is made on knowledge, and contains an unequivocal denial of the charges on which the right to an injunction rests, the general rule is that the injunction must be dissolved on the denials in the answer. 3 Brick. Dig. 352, § 303. But even this rule is not universal. Satterfield v. John, 53 Ala. 127; Chambers v. Iron Co., 67 Ala. 353; Davis v. Sowell, 77 Ala. 262. The present case, however, does not fall within...
To continue reading
Request your trial