Tatum v. Tatum
Decision Date | 28 May 1896 |
Citation | 20 So. 341,111 Ala. 209 |
Parties | TATUM v. TATUM ET AL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Montgomery; John G. Winter, Judge.
Bill by Heywood Tatum against Edmund Tatum and others to set aside a settlement of property on defendants, made by plaintiff as trustee under the will of Berry Tatum, deceased. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the bill, complainant appeals. Affirmed.
J. M Chilton, for appellant.
Gordon Macdonald, for appellees.
The will of Berry Tatum, Sr., contains the following provision In execution of the trust and power conferred in said item 4 of the will, and at his instance and request, by proceedings had in the city court of Montgomery county sitting in equity, the said Heywood Tatum made known and declared that he had selected Edmund Tatum and Clarke Tatum, and such other children as might be thereafter born to said Berry Tatum, Jr., from the family of said Berry Tatum, Jr., as the persons upon whom to settle the estate therein devised and bequeathed. The present bill shows these facts, and further shows that the city court decreed such settlement to be made, and, upon proper conveyances and transfers having been executed to said Edmund and Clarke and such other children as might thereafter be born, it was decreed that the resignation of said Heywood as trustee be accepted, and that he be fully discharged as such trustee. The object of the present bill is to have the selection and settlement heretofore made in favor of Edmund and Clarke children of Berry Tatum, and such others as may be born to him, set aside and annulled, and that he be allowed to select Berry Tatum, Jr., himself as the member of his family upon whom to settle said estate. The equity of the bill is made to rest wholly upon the following averments: That "orator would have selected the said Berry Tatum, Jr., as the beneficiary under the trust conferred by said will, but for the fact that your orator was advised by counsel that under said trust powers the said Berry Tatum, Jr., was not one of the persons from among whom he was authorized to make the selection, his counsel in that proceeding stating that the said Berry Tatum, Jr.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Crowson v. Cody
...... Nat. Park Bk. v. L. & N.R.R. Co., 199 Ala. 192, 196,. 74 So. 69; Hull v. Wimberly & Thomas Hdw. Co., 178. Ala. 538, 59 So. 568; Tatum v. Tatum, 111 Ala. 209,. 20 So. 341; Old Dominion Copper Min. Co. v. Bigelow, . 188 Mass. 315, 74 N.E. 653, 108 Am.St.Rep. 479; Hart v. Hart, ......
-
National Park Bank of New York v. Louisville & N.R. Co.
...... is general, the ruling will be referred to the grounds that. are well taken. Steiner v. Parker & Co., 108 Ala. 357, 19 So. 386; Tatum v. Tatum, 111 Ala. 209, 20. So. 341; Richard v. Steiner Bros., 152 Ala. 303, 44. So. 562; McDonald et al. v. Pearson, 114 Ala. 630,. 641, 21 ......
-
Depue v. Miller
...14 L. Ed. 768. A correct ruling upon a demurrer will be sustained, though an insufficient reason for it has been stated. Tatum v. Tatum, 111 Ala. 209, 20 South. 341; Se-chrlst v. Rialto Irrigation Dist, 129 Cal. 640, 62 Pac. 261. Having concluded, upon the authorities and principles above s......
-
Depue v. Miller
......(U. S.) 451, 14 L.Ed. 768. A correct. ruling upon a demurrer will be sustained, though an. insufficient reason for it has been stated. Tatum v. Tatum, 111 Ala. 209, 20 So. 341; Sechrist v. Rialto. Irrigation Dist., 129 Cal. 640, 62 P. 261. . . Having. ......