Ray v. Watkins
Decision Date | 15 January 1920 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 920 |
Citation | 85 So. 25,203 Ala. 683 |
Parties | RAY v. WATKINS et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Fayette County; Henry B. Foster, Judge.
Bill by George D. Ray against G.M. Watkins, as executor of the estate of Lizzie Ray, deceased, and others, for specific performance of a contract to convey land. Decree for respondents, and complainant appeals. Affirmed.
In view of Gen. Acts 1915, p. 705, and page 722, amending Act April 5, 1911 (Laws 1911, p. 198), to amend Code 1907, § 2846 providing that presumptions in favor of correctness of judgment appealed from shall not be indulged, Code 1907, § 5955, subd. 1, providing that no weight shall be given the chancellor's decision upon the facts, but the Supreme Court shall weigh the evidence, must be construed as applying where the judge did not see or hear the witnesses; but where he did, unless plainly erroneous, the findings will be treated like a jury's verdict.
The bill alleges that Lizzie Ray executed a bond for title to George D. Ray for certain land, and that the purchase money thereof was paid at a later date and Lizzie Ray executed a deed to complainant; but that in the execution of the deed which was intended to be a warranted deed, the parties thereto, through ignorance or inadvertence, selected as the justice of the peace one A.D. Ray, to take the acknowledgment to the deed, who was the father of the complainant and grantee in said deed. It is further alleged that Lizzie Ray afterward married G.M. Watkins, and, having died, left a will leaving all of her property to Watkins and naming him as executor. The judge trying the cause found the following facts as a basis for his decree dismissing the bill:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Johnston
... ... and were in a better position to determine whether or not his ... condition was feigned or real; and after a careful ... consideration of the evidence in this record, we find no just ... [87 So. 876.] ... for disturbing the verdict. Ray v. Watkins, 203 Ala ... 683, 85 So. 25, and authorities there cited. Other questions ... are fully dealt with in the original opinion ... The ... rehearing is therefore granted, the judgment of reversal set ... aside, and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed ... ...
-
Hodge v. Joy
...application in chancery cases. Brassell v. Brassell, 205 Ala. 201, 87 So. 347; McSwean v. McSwean, 204 Ala. 663, 86 So. 646; Ray v. Watkins, 203 Ala. 683, 85 So. 25; v. Grey, 199 Ala. 152, 74 So. 62. This action of the parties in so taking the testimony was the reason for application in cha......
-
Hope of Alabama Lodge of Odd Fellows v. Chambless
... ... the whole matter might have been concluded under the rule of ... Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403, 72 So. 52. The trial ... judge, without a jury, heard the witnesses in open court. The ... rule of Hackett v. Cash, supra, has been applied to such ... trials in equity. Ray v. Watkins, 203 Ala. 683, 85 ... So. 25; Andrews v. Grey, 199 Ala. 152, 74 So. 62 ... That is to say, the provisions of the statute (Code, 1907, § ... 5955, subd. 1) providing that on chancery appeal no weight ... shall be given the chancellor's decision upon the facts, ... but that the Supreme Court ... ...
-
Goldsmith v. Gates
...where the evidence is ore tenus (Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403, 72 So. 52; Andrews v. Grey, 199 Ala. 152, 74 So. 62; Ray v. Watkins, 203 Ala. 683, 85 So. 25), has application to a trial on oral testimony in the court. The decree of the probate court is affirmed. Affirmed. ANDERSON, C.J., an......