Traylor v. Clayton
TRAYLOR Et Ux. v. CLAYTON Et Al.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
MILLER, J.
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.
Vi of S. E.
Vi of section 32, township- 5, range 8, in De Kalb county, when in fact it was in the S. E, % of N. E.
Vi of said section 32.
The defendants file answer and cross-bill, and seek thereby to also correct error in *285 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.”
[1]
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 South. 530 , 67 Am. St. Rep. 189 ; Houston v. Faul, 86 Ala. 232 , 5 South. 433 .
[2]
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 Dill of complaint, and ordered the cross-bill dismissed. This decree is affirmed.
Affirmed.
ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE and GARDNER, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.