Nesmith v. Vines, 8 Div. 331.
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | LIVINGSTON, Justice. |
| Citation | 26 So.2d 265,248 Ala. 72 |
| Parties | NESMITH et al. v. VINES. |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 331. |
| Decision Date | 25 April 1946 |
26 So.2d 265
248 Ala. 72
NESMITH et al.
v.
VINES.
8 Div. 331.
Supreme Court of Alabama
April 25, 1946
Rehearing Denied June 13, 1946. [26 So.2d 266]
Wm. Stell, of Russellville, for appellants.
S. A. Lynne, of Decatur, for appellee.
LIVINGSTON, Justice.
W. T. Nesmith departed this life testate during the year 1944, leaving an estate consisting of real and personal property in the county of Lawrence, state of Alabama. He named two of his sons Elbert U. Nesmith and Earl E. Nesmith executors of his last will and testament. Prior to his death the said W. T. Nesmith executed and delivered [248 Ala. 73] three separate deeds conveying to three of his sons, Elbert U. Nesmith, Earl E. Nesmith and W. C. Nesmith, three separate parcels of real estate.
The will of W. T. Nesmith, deceased, was admitted to probate by the Probate Court of Lawrence County, Alabama, on December 4, 1944. On March 9, 1945, Larcy Evelyne Vines, a daughter of W. T. Nesmith, deceased, filed her bill of complaint in the Circuit Court, in Equity, of Lawrence County, against Elbert U. Nesmith and Earl E. Nesmith, individually, and as executors of the last will and testament of W. T. Nesmith, deceased, W. C. Nesmith, C. C. Nesmith, A. A. Nesmith and Glaffie Irene Dawson. The bill seeks to cancel, set aside, and hold for naught the three deeds above referred to on the grounds of fraud, undue influence, and mental incapacity of the grantor, and to contest the validity of the will of W. T. Nesmith, deceased, on the same grounds. The complainant and individual respondents are the children, next of kin and sole heirs at law of W. T. Nesmith, deceased, and are the sole devisees and legatees named in his will.
The will of W. T. Nesmith, deceased, does not undertake to dispose of the property deeded to his three sons, but does contain a provision that all the 'rest and residue' of his estate shall go to his seven children.
From a decree overruling demurrers to the bill of complaint this appeal is prosecuted.
Section 64, Title 61, Code of 1940, provides: 'Any person interested in any will, who has not contested the same under the provisions of this article, may, at any time, within the six months after the admission of such will to probate in this state, contest the validity of the same by bill in equity in the circuit court in the county in which such will was probated.'
The vital question is, Can the contest of a will, provided for in the foregoing statute, be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Segrest v. Segrest, 1190676
...of the adjudication of "will or no will," constitutes an in rem proceeding. See § 43-8-200, Ala. Code 1975.9 See also Nesmith v. Vines, 248 Ala. 72, 73, 26 So. 2d 265, 266 (1946) ("The contest of a will by bill in chancery is a proceeding in rem, entirely of statutory creation, and is limit......
-
Segrest v. Segrest, 1190676
...of the adjudication of "will or no will," constitutes an in rem proceeding. See § 43-8-200, Ala. Code 1975.9 See also Nesmith v. Vines, 248 Ala. 72,Page 33 73, 26 So. 2d 265, 266 (1946)("The contest of a will by bill in chancery is a proceeding in rem, entirely of statutory creation, and is......
-
First Nat. Bank of Birmingham v. Brown, 6 Div. 828
...the rights of the parties. Kaplan v. Coleman, 180 Ala. 267, 60 So. 885; Ex parte Walter, 202 Ala. 281, 283, 80 So. 119; Nesmith v. Vines, 248 Ala. 72, 26 So.2d 265. With such a statement of law, we find no fault, but such neither disposes of nor conflicts with the issue here of the right of......
-
Tuskegee Homes Co. v. Oswalt, 5 Div. 411.
...for that purpose should not have been sustained, and therefore that the bill should not have been dismissed; but that the demurrer [248 Ala. 72] to that aspect which seeks a recovery of the penalty was properly sustained. A decree will be here rendered accordingly. Reversed in part, affirme......
-
Segrest v. Segrest
...of the adjudication of "will or no will," constitutes an in rem proceeding. See § 43-8-200, Ala. Code 1975.9 See also Nesmith v. Vines, 248 Ala. 72, 73, 26 So. 2d 265, 266 (1946) ("The contest of a will by bill in chancery is a proceeding in rem, entirely of statutory creation, and is limit......
-
Segrest v. Segrest
...of the adjudication of "will or no will," constitutes an in rem proceeding. See § 43-8-200, Ala. Code 1975.9 See also Nesmith v. Vines, 248 Ala. 72,Page 33 73, 26 So. 2d 265, 266 (1946)("The contest of a will by bill in chancery is a proceeding in rem, entirely of statutory creation, and is......
-
First Nat. Bank of Birmingham v. Brown, 6 Div. 828
...the rights of the parties. Kaplan v. Coleman, 180 Ala. 267, 60 So. 885; Ex parte Walter, 202 Ala. 281, 283, 80 So. 119; Nesmith v. Vines, 248 Ala. 72, 26 So.2d 265. With such a statement of law, we find no fault, but such neither disposes of nor conflicts with the issue here of the right of......
-
Tuskegee Homes Co. v. Oswalt
......64 TUSKEGEE HOMES CO. v. OSWALT. 5 Div. 411.Supreme Court of AlabamaJune 13, 1946 . 8. Ala. 65] . [26 So.2d 866] . . Jack. ......