Porter v. Henderson
Decision Date | 12 June 1919 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 992 |
Citation | 82 So. 668,203 Ala. 312 |
Parties | PORTER v. HENDERSON. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Talladega County; Hugh D. Merrill, Judge.
Bill by W.D. Henderson against Essie C. Porter for the sale of lands for division.From the decree rendered, respondent appeals.Affirmed in part, and in part reversed and remanded.
The following is one of the papers directed to be set out:
(This deed was jointly and separately acknowledged.)
The deed from Jessie Wills and husband to W.D. Henderson is as follows:
The following is the deed from Burns and wife to Jessie Wills and her children:
(Properly signed and jointly and separately acknowledged.)
Riddle & Riddle, of Talladega, for appellant.
Knox, Acker, Dixon & Sims, of Talladega, for appellee.
The original bill had for its purpose the sale of lands for division among joint owners.
Respondent filed answer and cross-bill, to which complainant demurred and answered.The decree granted relief to the original complainant, and respondent appeals.
The bill averred that W.D. Henderson owned a two-thirds interest in certain lots, and it was admitted that, if he owned an interest therein, said property could not be equitably divided without a sale.The answer and cross-bill denied that Henderson had any title to the property in question, and averred that the deed through which respondent claims conveyed a fee-simple title to her; that, if this was not its legal effect, in the chain of title under which she held said Henderson had made a warranty deed (to her immediate grantor) to said land, and was estopped to claim an after-acquired interest which passed under his said warranty deed.It is further averred (in the cross-bill) that valuable improvements had been made by subsequent purchasers, and if it be held that Henderson had thereafter acquired a superior two-thirds interest in the lands in equity, respondent should be allowed full value for said improvements made on the lands.
As stated by counsel, there is no dispute in regard to the issues of fact presented which inquire, in short: (1) Whether Jessie Wills, at the time she executed a deed (November 21 1910) conveying to W.D. Henderson lots 2 and 3 in block H, in the town of Lincoln, county of Talladega, state of Alabama, had an undivided interest in, or fee simple title to, said lots.This inquiry necessitates a construction of the deed of R.B. Burns and wife (November 4, 1904) conveying said lands to "Jessie Wills and her children."To an...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Lowery v. May
...with the consistent and expressed intent of the parties; if this cannot be done, the first and granting clause will control. Porter v. Henderson, supra; v. Hodges, 160 Ala. 276, 49 So. 312; Ex parte Beavers, 34 Ala. 71; Petty v. Boothe, 19 Ala. 633. The habendum or covenants following canno......
-
Hardee v. Hardee
...including deeds, are equally binding, if they are inconsistent the written part prevails over the printed form. Porter v. Henderson, 203 Ala. 312, 82 So. 668; John Deere Plow Co. v. City Hardware Co., 175 Ala. 512, 57 So. But that rule is of no benefit in this case for the claimed conflict ......
-
Jenkins v. Huntsinger
...title, but the covenant of warranty is not necessary to make a deed effective. For a discussion of this subject, see Porter v. Henderson, 203 Ala. 312, 82 So. 668. My argument is that our statute under consideration, which I will discuss more in detail later, declaring, “That any transfer o......
-
Winsett v. Winsett
... ... Johns, supra, 93 Ala. 243, 9 So. 419; ... Hale v. Kinnaird, 76 So. 954, 958), and for valuable ... improvements made thereon in good faith. Porter v ... Henderson, 82 So. 668; Sanders v. Robertson, 57 ... Ala. 465, 472; McDaniel v. L. & N.R.R. Co., 155 Ala ... 553, 46 So. 981; Ford v ... ...