Neal v. Neal
| Decision Date | 10 June 1908 |
| Citation | 47 So. 66,155 Ala. 604 |
| Parties | NEAL ET AL. v. NEAL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chancery Court, Jefferson County; Alfred H. Benners, Chancellor.
Bill by Martha A. Neal against Minnie A. Neal and others, widow and daughters of Joseph D. Neal, deceased, to set aside and annul a deed alleged to have been executed by complainant to said Joseph D. Neal. From a decree for complainant, respondents appeal. Affirmed.
John C. Carmichael and Ivey Lewis, for appellants.
McCrossin & Garrett, for appellee.
While we recognize the rule, as laid down in the case of McLeod v. McLeod, 145 Ala. 273, 40 So. 414, 117 Am. St. Rep. 41, and reaffirmed in Dolbery v. Dolbery (Ala.) 44 So. 1018, and Sanders v. Gurley (Ala.) 44 So. 1022, that a donation from the parent to a child, alone and of itself, would raise no presumption of undue influence, since, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the parent is presumably the dominant party, we think the evidence overcomes such a presumption in the present case. The grantor was a widow over 65 years of age; the grantee being her oldest son, in the prime of life, who had been her sole and trusted agent and adviser for 20 years, having the absolute control and management of her affairs, and she reposing in him all confidence and doing all things suggested without inquiry or hesitancy. It is evident that she executed the deed in question at her son's request, without being informed what it was, and doubtless thinking she was performing some other business act. His subsequent conduct strongly bears out this inference. He withheld the deed from record, never made any claim of ownership to any member of the family during a period of 16 years, and did all acts impressive of her continued ownership, even borrowing money and having her give mortgage on same. It is true the deed purports to be for a valuable consideration; but it is so insignificant that it places the grantee in little or no better position than a mere donee.
The decree of the chancery court is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mann v. Prouty
...Am. St. Rep. 41, 40 So. 414; Dolberry v. Dolberry, 153 Ala. 434, 44 So. 1018; Sanders v. Gurley, 153 Ala. 459, 44 So. 1022; Neal v. Neal, 155 Ala. 604, 47 So. 66; McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 241 Ill. 366, 89 N.E. Mallow v. Walker, 115 Iowa 238, 91 Am. St. Rep. 158, 88 N.W. 452. Where the pare......
-
Hale v. Cox
...by the child is not sufficient in itself to overcome this presumption. Dolberry v. Dolberry, 153 Ala. 434, 44 So. 1018; Neal et al. v. Neal, 155 Ala. 604, 47 So. 66; Cox v. Parker et al., 212 Ala. 35, 101 So. Hawthorne et al. v. Jenkins, 182 Ala. 255, 62 So. 505, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 707; Noble......
-
Hawthorne v. Jenkins
...So. 414, 117 Am.St.Rep. 41; Dolberry v. Dolberry, 153 Ala. 434, 44 So. 1018; Stanfill v. Johnson, 159 Ala. 546, 49 So. 223; Neal v. Neal, 155 Ala. 604, 47 So. 66; Bain Bain, 150 Ala. 453, 43 So. 562; Couch v. Couch, 148 Ala. 332, 42 So. 624; Sanders v. Gurley, 153 Ala. 459, 44 So. 1022. In ......
-
Keeble v. Underwood
...execution of the will, it is the duty of the court to submit to the jury the ascertainment of their existence as a fact." In Neal v. Neal, 155 Ala. 604, 47 So. 66, it was that the son had been for 20 years the sole and trusted agent and adviser of his mother, the grantor. The note to the ca......