Williams v. Kitchens
Decision Date | 30 August 1954 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 204 |
Citation | 261 Ala. 340,74 So. 2d 457 |
Parties | Mamie R. WILLIAMS v. Minnie Lee KITCHENS, et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Chas. Douglass, Anniston, for appellant.
Young & Young, Anniston, for appellees.
This appeal is from a decree sustaining demurrer to a bill in equity.In essence, the bill is one to have either a resulting or a constructive trust in real estate decreed in favor of complainant.
The material averments of the bill, as last amended, are contained in the following statement taken from appellant's brief (the bracketed portions being added by us):
'The bill shows that complainant loved her mother, had the utmost confidence in her, believed her mother would carry out the agreement, and, under this belief, and in reliance upon the promise, she turned the execution of the purchase over to her mother, and did not follow with check to see if the agreement had been complied with.
'In paragraph 17 of amendment Fthe bill avers that Rufus C. Echols acquired this deed through undue influence, or, in the alternative, through connivance between him and his grandmother, and in the bill it is shown that he was the dominant party.
The question presented is whether the bill sufficiently shows, against a demurrer to it, facts which overcome the effect of the long delay in filing it.As shown from the facts stated above, the right to sue in equity arose upon the execution of the deed February 20, 1926, in violation of the instructions to Mrs. Kitchens by complainant in respect to the manner of making the investment.This bill was originally filed July 9, 1952.That was of course more than twenty years after the claim arose.
In order to determine the question presented we must first ascertain the nature of the limitation applicable to such a claim.That is to say, whether it is controlled by the ten year statute of limitations, Title 7, § 20, Code--or by the equitable rule of prescription which is twenty years, or by laches also an equitable principle.It is to be noted that under the instructions to Mrs. Kitchens, the title of the lot was to be taken in her for her life, with remainder in complainant.So that the nature of complainant's equity is to enforce a constructive trust in her favor operative only in remainder after the death of Mrs. Kitchens, the life tenant.Hawkins v. Sanders, 260 Ala. 585, 72 So.2d 81(15).To grant the relief sought does not result in obtaining the present enjoyment of the property or any part of it or its possession in whole or in part.Complainant does not claim the right in equity to such present use of it or its present possession in any respect.
There is a theory advanced that it is barred by the ten year statute of limitations, for that it is in the nature of a suit for the recovery of land, its tenements or hereditaments, or the possession thereof.But we have many cases which refute the theory, and which we will undertake to analyze.
--Bolen v. Hoven, 143 Ala. 652, 39 So. 379.
The foregoing is quoted in Winters v. Powell, 180 Ala. 425, 431, 61 So. 96, 98, and...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
- Williams v. Williams
-
Haavik v. Farnell
...suit for the recovery of land, since land is the subject matter of the suit. Knowles v. Canant, supra, and cases cited; Williams v. Kitchens, 261 Ala. 340, 74 So.2d 457; Sykes v. Sykes, 262 Ala. 277, 78 So.2d 273; Henslee v. Merritt, 263 Ala. 266, 82 So.2d The limitation for the recovery of......
-
Willcutt v. Union Oil Co. of California
...A mineral interest in land is a corporeal hereditament which may be recovered in an action governed by § 6-2-33. Williams v. Kitchens, 261 Ala. 340, 74 So.2d 457 (1954). The trial court, therefore, erred in granting summary judgment on the claim for In their third issue, the Willcutts argue......
-
FSRJ Props., LLC v. Walker
...title so as to enable them to sue at law for the possession when their possessory right shall come into being.”Williams v. Kitchens, 261 Ala. 340, 346–47, 74 So.2d 457, 463 (1954). We find Williams instructive, although it was decided before the effective date of the Alabama Rules of Civil ......