Vizard v. Robinson
Decision Date | 08 April 1913 |
Citation | 181 Ala. 349,61 So. 959 |
Parties | VIZARD v. ROBINSON. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chancery Court, Coosa County; W.W. Whiteside Chancellor.
Bill by Allen Robinson against Anthony Vizard to quiet title to timber interest in land. Decree for complainant, and respondent appeals. Reversed and rendered.
The deed mentioned in the opinion is as follows: Then follows the ordinary covenants of seisen right to convey, and warranty. This deed was dated March 23 1903. The bill alleges the conveyance from Cooper to the Vizard Investment Company, and from the Vizard Investment Company to Anthony Vizard, and the prayer seeks to declare the claim, interest, and title of said Anthony Vizard in and to the timber growing on said land to be void and of no effect and removed as a cloud on orator's title. He also seeks to declare the other deed void and of no effect, and to remove them as cloud on title.
Stevens, Lyons & Dean, of Mobile, for appellant.
George A. Sorrell, of Alexander City, for appellee.
Bill to quiet title, with particular reference to the timber interest therein. Code, § 5443 et seq. There are two major questions presented for review: First, whether an officer concerned, as will be later stated, is competent to take an acknowledgment of a conveyance of an interest in land occupied as a homestead by the grantor and his wife; second, whether the deed, which (omitting the calls of the land) the reporter will set out, expressed a limitation upon the estate granted, or a covenant merely.
As respects the validity vel non of the instrument, as that question is affected by the alleged want of competency of the officer to take the acknowledgment of the parties, the attack here made is direct, not collateral. Hayes v. B. & L. Asso., 124 Ala. 663, 26 So. 527, 82 Am.St.Rep. 216; Monroe v. Arthur, 126 Ala. 362, 28 So. 476, 85 Am.St.Rep. 36; National B. & L. Asso. v. Cunningham, 130 Ala. 539, 30 So. 335.
These propositions are settled in this state: Morris v. Bank of Attalla, 153 Ala. 352, 357, 45 So. 219, 221; Chattanooga Nat. B. & L. Asso. v. Vaught, 143 Ala. 389, 39 So. 215; Sellers v. Grace, 150 Ala. 181, 43 So. 716; Griffith v. Ventress, 91 Ala. 366, 374, 375, 8 So. 312, 11 L.R.A. 193, 24 Am.St.Rep. 918; Amer. Mtg. Co. v. Thornton, 108 Ala. 258, 19 So. 529, 54 Am.St.Rep. 148; Alford v. First National Bank, 156 Ala. 438, 47 So. 230, 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) 216.
In Hayes v. Sou. Home Ins. Co., 124 Ala. 663, 667, 26 So. 527, 530 (82 Am.St.Rep. 216), it was ruled that the public policy involved refutes the competency of an officer "financially interested in the conveyance" to take and certify an acknowledgment, and that the doctrine has a peculiar force in its application to cases where the title to the homestead is to be affected and the certification of the separate acknowledgment of the wife, in a particular way and form, is a condition precedent to the transmission of interests under the conveyance. The doctrine was recently reiterated in Byrd v. Bailey, 169 Ala. 452, 53 So. 773, Ann.Cas. 1912B, 331.
Robinson (appellee) was the owner in fee of the lands which were his homestead.
Cooper, appellant's predecessor in asserted right, was the grantee in the conveyance.
Paragraph 8 of the bill, the only section particularly necessary to be considered in this connection, is as follows:
The agreed statement of facts on this point contains this:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lowery v. May
...209 Ala. 588, 96 So. 783; Porter v. Henderson, 203 Ala. 312, 317, 82 So. 668; Allumns' Case, 208 Ala. 369, 94 So. 296; Vizard v. Robinson, 161 Ala. 349, 61 So. 959; Cobbs v. U.N.S. Co., 202 Ala. 333, 80 So. inconsistency between clauses or conditions which cannot be reconciled must be resol......
-
Addington v. State
... ... acknowledgment was personally interested in the mortgage ... Monroe v. Arthur, 126 Ala. 362, 28 So. 476, 85 ... Am.St.Rep. 36; Vizard v. Robinson, 181 Ala. 353, 61 ... So. 959. The objection to the mortgage and the motion to ... exclude were properly overruled ... It ... ...
-
Porter v. Henderson
... ... deeds than of wills ( Campbell v. Noble, 110 Ala ... 382, 394, 395, 19 So. 28; Vizard v. Robinson, 181 ... Ala. 349, 357, 61 So. 959), and that deeds of bargain and ... sale for a valuable consideration are to be construed most ... ...
-
Colburn v. Mid-State Homes, Inc.
...officer, and his certificate cannot be questioned, if his jurisdiction was obtained, except on the grounds above noted. Vizard v. Robinson, 181 Ala. 349, 353, 61 So. 959; Morris v. Bank of Attalla, 153 Ala. 352, 357, 45 So. 219. In Ford v. Fauche, 272 Ala. 348, 351, 131 So.2d 852, 854, it i......