Traylor v. Clayton
| Decision Date | 03 February 1921 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 104 |
| Citation | 87 So. 521,205 Ala. 284 |
| Parties | TRAYLOR et ux. v. CLAYTON et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, De Kalb County; W.W. Harralson, Judge.
Bill by O.W. Clayton and others, as trustees, against G.R. Traylor and wife, to correct a description in a deed and to quiet title, with cross-bill by respondent seeking to have certain additions made to the habendum clause of the deed. From a decree granting relief to complainant and denying relief on the cross-bill, respondents appeal. Affirmed.
Isbell, Scott & Downer, of Ft. Payne, for appellants.
A.E. Hawkins, of Ft. Payne, for appellees.
This is a bill of complaint to correct error in the description of land in a deed and to quiet title thereto. In April, 1902, G.R. Traylor and his wife, T.A. Traylor, executed deed to complainants to a certain tract of land, describing it as being in S.E. 1/4 of S.E. 1/4 of section 32, township 5, range 8, in De Kalb county, when in fact it was in the S.E. 1/4 of N.E. 1/4 of said section 32.
The defendants file answer and cross-bill, and seek thereby to also correct error in said deed, and have inserted therein the following:
"That the property should revert back to the grantors when it ceased to be used for school purposes; that the deed was executed in blank, with the understanding that it should be so inserted."
The answer of the defendants and all the testimony clearly show that complainants are entitled to relief prayed for in their bill. Fields v. Clayton, 117 Ala. 538, 23 So. 530, 67 Am.St.Rep. 189; Houston v. Faul, 86 Ala. 232, 5 So. 433.
The evidence does not sustain the contention of the defendants in the cross-bill, and the burden is on them in that issue.
The court below properly granted the relief prayed for in the bill of complaint, and ordered the cross-bill dismissed. This decree is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amberson v. Patterson
... ... end of relief prayed. Brumfield v. Hall, 215 Ala ... 515, 517, 110 So. 898; Traylor v. Clayton, 205 Ala ... 284, 87 So. 521; Lipham v. Shamblee, 205 Ala. 498, ... 88 So. 569. It requires great particularity of averment in ... ...
-
Parra v. Cooper
...5 So. 433, 434. This was the rule of the earlier cases. Johnson v. Crutcher, 48 Ala. 368. It has not been departed from. Traylor v. Clayton, 205 Ala. 284, 87 So. 521. that would bar relief was recently considered as follows: "It is further insisted that the bill shows complainant failed to ......
-
Clipper v. Gordon
...511; Berry v. Webb, 77 Ala. 507; Houston v. Faul, 86 Ala. 232, 5 So. 433; Dulo v. Miller, 112 Ala. 687, 20 So. 981; Traylor et ux. v. Clayton et al., 205 Ala. 284, 87 So. 521; Parra v. Cooper, et al., 213 Ala. 340, 104 So. 827; McCaskill et al. v. Toole, 218 Ala. 523, 119 So. 214; Waller v.......
-
Hulsey v. Folsom, 6 Div. 691
...Dozier v. Mitchell, 65 Ala. 511; Peacock v. Bethea, 151 Ala. 141, 43 So. 864; Hataway v. Carnley, 198 Ala. 39, 73 So. 382; Traylor v. Clayton, 205 Ala. 284, 87 So. 521; Goulding Fertilizer co. v. Blanchard, 178 Ala. 298, 59 So. 485; Hampton v. Reichert, 206 Ala. 463, 90 So. 311; Franklin v.......