Kyle v. Liddell
Decision Date | 30 May 1889 |
Citation | 87 Ala. 423,6 So. 296 |
Parties | KYLE ET AL. v. LIDDELL ET AL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from chancery court, Etowah county; S. K. MCSPADDEN Chancellor.
The bill in this case is filed by W. H. Denson, R. B. Kyle, and Sam Henry, as complainants, against Daniel Liddell and wife and Mrs. Perdue, to foreclose a deed of trust made by Liddell and wife to secure the payment of a promissory note made payable to W. J. Perdue, which said note is described in said deed of trust. Mrs. Perdue is made a party defendant because she conveyed all of her property to Kyle and Henry by deed executed in 1886, and which is set out below. The promissory note secured by the deed of trust is made payable to W. J Perdue; but the deed of trust is made to W. H. Denson, as trustee, with certain instructions to sell the said property upon failure of said Liddell to pay the note when the same falls due, which instructions are sufficiently set forth in the opinion. W. J. Perdue died in 1884, leaving a last will and testament, which was duly probated on the 19th of January, 1885. By this last will and testament all of the property of every description belonging to the said W. J Perdue was devised and bequeathed to his wife, the said Augusta E. Perdue. On the 9th of August, 1886, Mrs. Perdue conveyed to R. B. Kyle and Sam Henry all of her property under the following conveyance, which is made an exhibit to the bill:
Liddell and wife never answered the bill, but confessed the same. Mrs. Augusta E. Perdue filed demurrers to the bill, the main ground of which were that the instrument made by Mrs. Perdue, August 9th, and copied above, was not a deed or a conveyance in præsenti, but a testamentary paper; and that Mrs. Perdue is alive; that the said Kyle and Henry have no interest in or right to control the deed made by Liddell and wife to Denson, or to have collected the debt secured by said deed. The chancellor sustained the demurrers of Mrs. Perdue, and it is from this decree by the chancellor that the present appeal is prosecuted, and the said decree is assigned as error.
W. H. Denson and Watts & Son, for appellants.
Dortch & Martin, for appellees.
The points at issue in this cause arise mainly out of a written instrument bearing date August 9, 1886, and signed by Augusta E. Perdue. One of the controverted questions is whether that instrument is a deed or a will. It was drawn manifestly by an inexperienced draughtsman. The reporter will set it out in extenso. The conveyance has many of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Henderson v. Henderson
...will have operation according to its legal effect." Abney v. Moore, 106 Ala. 131, 18 So. 60; Daniel v. Hill, 52 Ala. 430; Kyle v. Perdue, 87 Ala. 423, 6 So. 273; Crocker v. Smith, 94 Ala. 295, 10 So. 258, 16 L. A. 576; Gomez v. Higgins, 130 Ala. 493, 30 So. 417; Jordan v. Jordan, 65 Ala. 30......
-
Self v. Self
... ... v. SELF et al. 8 Div. 719Supreme Court of AlabamaMarch 19, 1925 ... Appeal ... from Circuit Court, Morgan County; Osceola Kyle, Judge ... Bill in ... equity by Herbert F. Self and others against N.H. Self and ... others. From a decree overruling demurrer to the ... ...
-
Kelly v. Richardson
... ... Kelly. Crocker ... v. Smith, 94 Ala. 295, 10 South. Rep. 258; Trawick ... v. Davis, 85 Ala. 342, 5 South. Rep. 83; Kyle v ... Perdue, 87 Ala. 423, 6 South. Rep. 296 ... Putting ... the codicil first considered in the stead of the second ... clause of ... ...
-
Craft v. Moon
...64. A written instrument may sometimes operate both as a will and as a deed; that is, partly as a deed and partly as a will. Kyle v. Perdue, 87 Ala. 423, 6 So. 296. As the rules of construction of written instruments for the purpose of determining whether they be wills or deeds, they are no......