Strange v. King
| Decision Date | 12 April 1934 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 527. |
| Citation | 154 So. 115,228 Ala. 511 |
| Parties | STRANGE et al. v. KING et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; A. E. Hawkins, Judge.
Bill by Martha King and others against William Jesse Strange and others and cross-bill by respondent Oliver Gardner. From a decree overruling demurrers to the original and cross-bills respondents Strange, Street, and Bradford appeal.
Affirmed.
Street & Bradford, of Guntersville, for appellants.
Claud D. Scruggs, of Guntersville, for appellees.
The original bill is by Martha King, individually and as the administratrix of the estate of John M. Strange, deceased against all the other heirs at law of said John M. Strange one of whom is William Jesse Strange, Oliver Gardner, a mortgagee of John M. Strange, and O. D. Street and W. R Bradford, mortgagees of William Jesse Strange, for the removal of the administration of the estate from the probate court of Marshall county into the circuit court, in equity, for further administration, for the sale of the property of the estate for the payment of debts, and for distribution among the heirs, and to determine and adjust all equities between the parties, and for general relief.
The bill alleges that William J. Strange is in possession of the lands belonging to the estate, claiming them under a deed executed by John M. Strange and wife to him, which was not delivered during the lifetime of John M. Strange. The bill was verified by the oath of the complainant, and upon its filing with the register the court entered an order removing the administration of the estate into the circuit court.
Gardner answered, admitting the allegations of the original bill, and making his answer a cross-bill, alleging that the mortgage which he holds on the lands was given by John M. Strange and his wife for money loaned by the mortgagee to them, and that there is a balance due on the mortgage debt of $500.
William J. Strange, W. R. Bradford, and O. D. Street are made parties defendant to the cross-bill. William J. Strange demurred to the original bill, for want of equity, multifariousness, adequate remedy at law, and because it appears that the respondent, and not the complainant, is in possession of the lands. He demurred to the cross-bill for want of equity, and because its averments fail to show that said Gardner was a bona fide purchaser. The respondents Street and Bradford demurred to the original bill on all the grounds assigned by Strange and also for misjoinder.
The demurrers were overruled, and from that decree this appeal is prosecuted.
In these circumstances the circuit court, sitting in equity after the order of removal was entered, obtained full jurisdiction to supervise the administration of the estate, and in the course of the administration to order the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Scott v. State
-
Henslee v. Henslee
...two years after Edna's death. A deed not delivered during the lifetime of the grantor confers no title on the grantee. Strange v. King, 228 Ala. 511, 513, 154 So. 115. Hence, the recording of the deed after Edna's death raises no presumption of delivery of the deed to J. It is insisted by a......
-
Cater v. Howard
... ... court of equity, the jurisdiction of the latter is full and ... complete to accomplish the ultimate purpose of the ... administration. Strange et al. v. King et al., 228 ... Ala. 511, 154 So. 115; Irwin v. Irwin, 227 Ala. 140, ... 148 So. 846; Dent et al. v. Foy et al., 206 Ala ... 454, ... ...
-
Caheen v. First Nat. Bank
... ... was without equity, if this objection had been well grounded ... Forman v. McAnear, 219 Ala. 157, 121 So. 538; ... Strange et al. v. King et al., 228 Ala. 511, 154 So ... 115; Irwin v. Irwin, 227 Ala. 140, 148 So. 846; ... Dent et al. v. Foy et al., 206 Ala. 454, 90 ... ...