TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sanson v. Sanson

Sanson v. Sanson.

Sanson v. Sanson, 103 So. 863 (Ala. 1925)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Alabama · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 9, 1925
Docket
No. 4 Div. 212.
Judges
Miller, Anderson, Sayre, Gardner
Citations
103 So. 863212 Ala. 5851925 Ala. LEXIS 139

Opinion of the Court — Miller

MILLER, J.

This is' a bill in equity by Jesse Sanson against Mary Pearl Sanson, Ms wife, by which he seeks to have declared void, for fraud and undue influence, a deed executed by him conveying to her 40 acres of land, particularly described therein. The court, by decree, overruled demurrers of defendant to the bill and parts of the bill of complaint. The court, on final hearing of the cause on the pleading and proof, held the complainant, was not entitled to relief, dismissed his bill, and taxed him with the court cost. This appeal is prosecuted by the complainant from that final decree.

Rule 1 of this court requires errors to be assigned in writing upon the transcript in order to receive consideration. Supreme Court rule 1 (Qode 1923, vol. 4, p. 880); Halle v. Brooks, 209 Ala. 486 , 96 So. 341 . Errors not assigned in civil cases, in writing on the transcript, will be considered waived in this court, unless it be a want of jurisdiction of the subject-matter. Hymes v. State, 209 Ala. 91 , 95 So. 383 ; Tuskaloosa Cotton Seed Co. v. Perry, 85 Ala. 158 , headnote 1, 4 So. 635 .

The trial court had original, and this court appellate, jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the cause, to cancel a deed and declare it void for fraud and undue influence of defendant in securing its execution and delivery by complainant to defendant as alleged in the bill of complaint. 5 Mayfield’s Dig. p. 334, § 8. But the appellant assigns no error in writing on the transcript; no question is’properly presented on this appeal for us to review, so the decree must be and is affirmed. Supreme Court rule 1 (Code 1923, vol. 4, p. 880); Hymes v. State, 209 Ala. 91 , 95 So. 383 ; Halle v. Brooks, 209 Ala. 486 , headnote 1, 96 So. 341 ; Tuskaloosa Cotton Seed Co. v. Perry, 85 Ala. 158 , headnote 1, 4 So. 635 .

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.

1934: 119342026peak 1934 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Love v. Sims-Morgan Lumber Co.158 So. 180 (Ala. 1934)

Most recent

  1. Love v. Sims-Morgan Lumber Co.158 So. 180 (Ala. 1934)

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.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Halle v. Brooks, 96 So. 341 (Ala. 1923) 41
Hymes v. State, 95 So. 383 (Ala. 1923) 22
Tuskaloosa Cotton-Seed Oil Co. v. Perry, 85 Ala. 158 (1887) 22

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list