Lange v. Hammer
| Decision Date | 26 November 1908 |
| Citation | 47 So. 724,157 Ala. 322 |
| Parties | LANGE ET AL. v. HAMMER. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chancery Court, Cullman County; W. H. Simpson Chancellor.
Suit by J. C. F. Hammer against Robert Lange and another. From a decree holding the pleas insufficient, defendants appealed. Affirmed.
The bill alleges that complainant conveyed to Lange a certain parcel or lot of land, and that it was the intention to convey certain other lands, and that the misdescription of the land in the deed was caused either by a mistake of the complainant, combined with the fraud of said Robert Lange, or else by a mutual mistake of the parties to the deed, and that the said Elizabeth Lange had knowledge of the fact when she acquired title thereto from her husband. Defendants each filed a separate plea, which was incorporated in the answer. The pleas are practically the same, and the plea of defendant Robert Lange is here set out. The defendant for further special plea or answer to the complaint says that heretofore to wit, on the 9th day of May, 1906, the complainant filed a bill of complaint in this court against this defendant involving the same rights and controversies as is involved in this bill of complaint, and on the 11th day of August, 1906 the said complainant filed an amendment to his said bill in this court making the other party hereto, Elizabeth Lange, a party defendant to that bill of complaint, and defendant further alleges that such proceedings were had in such case that this defendant filed his answer to said bill of complaint and the defendant Elizabeth Lange also filed an answer to said bill, and the said cause thereupon being at issue proof was taken upon both sides, and said cause, after the taking of such proof, was duly submitted to the court upon the pleadings and proof as noted by the register for a decree in vacation, and upon the 30th day of April, 1907, a decree was duly rendered in said cause, dismissing the complainant's bill, and that no appeal has ever been taken from said decree, nor has said decree ever been set aside, vacated, or held for naught but has ever since the date thereof been in full force and effect, all of which fully appear from the record and proceedings in said cause and defendant alleges that the parties to said cause were the same parties as the parties to this cause, and that the subject-matter of said bill is the same subject-matter involved in this bill.
F. E St. Johns, for appellants.
James A. Mitchell and Frank...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goodman v. McMillan
...upon the merits, and so much of the proceedings in the former case as is necessary to show such facts should be set out. Lange v. Hammer, 157 Ala. 322, 47 So. 724. It is also argued to sustain this provision of the trust that the limitation of the estate to the widowhood of the trustor's th......
-
Haines v. Cunha
... ... Jones, 72 ... Ala. 368; Terrell v. Nelson, 199 Ala. 436, 74 So ... 929; Hall & Farley v. Ala. T. & I. Co., 173 Ala ... 398, 56 So. 235; Lange v. Hammer, 157 Ala. 322, 47 ... Where a ... suit is defeated for nonjoinder or misjoinder of parties, a ... judgment rendered on that ... ...
-
Yancey v. Denham
... ... the issues on the former suit were broad enough to cover the ... issues in the case at bar. Lange v. Hammer, 157 Ala ... 322, 47 So. 724; Glasser v. Meyrovitz, 119 Ala. 152, ... 24 So. 514; McCall v. Jones, 72 Ala. 368; ... Terrell v. Nelson, ... ...
-
Maroney v. Whitaker
...of a plea res judicata. Goodman v. McMillan, 258 Ala. 125, 61 So.2d 55; Yancey v. Denham, 211 Ala. 138, 99 So. 851; Lange v. Hammer, 157 Ala. 322, 47 So. 724. The merit of this appeal rests on the single contention that since at the time of the conveyance Grundy and Lucy Maroney were man an......