Stearnes v. Woodall
| Decision Date | 28 June 1928 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 6 |
| Citation | 218 Ala. 128,117 So. 643 |
| Parties | STEARNES v. WOODALL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; W.W. Haralson, Judge.
Bill to sell lands for division by Mary Stearnes against Oscar E Woodall and others, and cross-bill by the named defendant. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the cross-bill complainant appeals. Affirmed.
T Harvey Wright and W.C. Rayburn, both of Guntersville, for appellant.
Claud D. Scruggs, of Guntersville, for appellee.
The appellant, claiming to be an heir at law of Simon Ross, filed the original bill against the other heirs at law of said Ross, and the appellee, Oscar Woodall, who is alleged to have succeeded to a life estate vested in Henry Winston, the husband of one of the deceased heirs, to have the value of that interest determined, and the lands sold for division among the joint owners.
Woodall answered, asserting that he was the sole owner of the property, making his answer a cross-bill, and praying that his title be quieted as against the claims of the parties to the suit.
The complainant filed demurrers to the cross-bill, which were overruled, and from that decree she has appealed.
The cross-bill avers, in substance, that said Simon Ross, the ancestor of the complainant, entered the lands in controversy as a homestead, and received a patent therefor on November 1, 1884; that some time during the year 1890, Ross and his wife entered into an agreement with Henry Winston, whereby Winston agreed to support, maintain, and care for Ross and his wife during the remainder of their lives, and in consideration of this undertaking Ross and his wife agreed to sell and did sell the land in controversy to said Winston and put him in actual possession thereof; that Winston fully executed and performed his part of the contract, by maintaining, keeping, and looking after Ross and his wife during their lives, and at their death furnished for them proper burial equipment and buried them; that said Winston remained in open, peaceable, continuous, and adverse possession of the land from the date of making the agreement, claiming to own the same, and assessing and paying the taxes thereon down to the 5th day of December, 1925, when he sold and conveyed the same by deed to the respondent, Woodall, for a valuable consideration; that said Simon Ross died more than 33 years before the cross-bill was filed, and his wife died in the year 1904; that since respondent Woodall purchased from Winston, he has been in the actual, peaceable, and adverse possession of the property.
These averments show that Winston was put in possession of the land by Ross and wife under the parol agreement of purchase, and the agreement had been fully executed by Winston's full performance, before his sale to Woodall, in legal effect by full payment of the purchase money, bringing the case clearly within the exception to the statute. Code of 1923, § 8034, subd. 5; Normant v. Eureka Co., 98 Ala. 181, 12 So. 454, 39 Am.St.Rep. 45.
The statute of frauds is not applicable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watson v. Price
...Rutledge, 202 Ala. 213, 80 So. 35; Smith v. Smith, 213 Ala. 670, 106 So. 194; Earnest v. Fite, 211 Ala. 363, 100 So. 637; Stearnes v. Woddall, 218 Ala. 128, 117 So. 643. " 'And if a conveyance of his holding is sufficient to include the strip thus acquired, it will pass under it. But what i......
-
Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. SOUTHERN PRE. PAT. WKS.
...upon the following decisions: Kidd v. Borum, 181 Ala. 144, 61 So. 100; Walker v. Coley, 264 Ala. 492, 88 So.2d 868; Stearnes v. Woodall, 218 Ala. 128, 130, 117 So. 643, 644; Oxford v. Estes, 229 Ala. 606, 611, 158 So. The appellee points out that each of those cases involved possession of a......
-
Cloud v. Southmont Development Co.
...Rutledge 202 Ala. 213, 80 So. 35; Smith v. Smith, 213 Ala. 670, 106 So. 194; Earnest v. Fite, 211 Ala. 363, 100 So. 637; Stearnes v. Woodall, 218 Ala. 128, 117 So. 643. And if a conveyance of his holding is sufficient to include the strip thus acquired, it will pass under The rule as stated......
-
Morris v. Yancey
...243 Ala. 261, 9 So.2d 751; Kidd v. Borum, 181 Ala. 144, 61 So. 100; Vidmer v. Lloyd, 184 Ala. 153, 63 So. 943. In Stearnes v. Woodall, 218 Ala. 128, 117 So. 643, after quoting from Kidd v. Borum, supra, we 'In this respect the elements on which the doctrine of prescription is applied differ......