Watkins v. Carter

• Decision Date: 21 December 1909
• Citation: 51 So. 318,164 Ala. 456
• Parties: WATKINS v. CARTER ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

51 So. 318

164 Ala. 456

WATKINS v. CARTER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 21, 1909

Appeal from Chancery Court, Colbert County; W. H. Simpson Chancellor.

Bill by Jacob Watkins against Sallie Carter and another. From a decree in favor of defendants, complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Kirk Carmichael & Rather, for appellant.

George P. Jones and Almon & Andrews, for appellees.

MAYFIELD J.

The bill is denominated by counsel for parties as one to enforce a resulting trust in land. The bill seeks to specifically enforce an agreement between the complainant and his deceased brother to purchase a tract of land from one Thompson and wife, as to which the title to the land was taken in the name of the deceased brother, but alleges that the purchase price was paid by both in pursuance of the contract to purchase and prays incidentally that complainant be allowed to redeem as to his interest in the land. The material allegations of the bill are denied by the respondents, the widow and child of the deceased brother.

Much evidence was taken and introduced on the submission by both complainant and respondents, much of which was incompetent and illegal, especially that of complainant, detailing various conversations and transactions had between him and his deceased brother, William, whose estate is interested in the suit. Other parts of the testimony were purely hearsay, too indefinite and uncertain to be considered, standing alone, and much of it was not otherwise made certain or competent. The chancellor, in his opinion, states that he disregarded all such evidence, and did not pass upon each part of the testimony seriatim as to which objections were interposed and rulings of the court invoked, and states that only the legal, relevant, and competent evidence was considered. On the final submission on the pleadings and proof, as noted by the register, the chancellor decreed that the complainant was not entitled to the relief prayed, and dismissed the bill without prejudice to the parties.

We have reviewed all the testimony carefully, and have reached the same conclusion as did the chancellor. It does, we think certainly appear from the proof that complainant and respondents conferred with each other and with the vendors, Thompson and wife, as to the purchase of the land; but it does not appear that complainant paid any part of the purchase price before, or at the time of, the purchase, and as a part of the original purchase, or that he incurred any obligation to pay any part of the deferred payments. The evidence leaves the question in doubt as to whether any part of complainant's money paid any part of the purchase price, and, if any, how much. The evidence shows that the two brothers were jointly interested in a...