Cameron v. Cameron

82 Ala. 392
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedDecember 15, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 82 Ala. 392 (Cameron v. Cameron) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cameron v. Cameron, 82 Ala. 392 (Ala. 1886).

Opinion

STONE, C. J.

1. We do not think that the averment's of the present bill are sufficient to show that the bill single,' alleged' to have been given in 1861 by Daniel Cameron to complainant, imposed any liability other than that of a debt. They fail to show that the said Daniel became trustee, or quasi guardian for the said Martha.— Vincent v. Rogers, 30 Ala. 471; Whetstone v. Whetstone, 75 Ala. 495.

2. The bill charges that the said Daniel Cameron made payments on said bill single, or debt, during each of the years 1862, 1869 or 1870, 1872, 1875, 1876, 1877, 1878, 1879, and 1883. If this be true, the several payments were a recognition of the debt, and kept it álive. Daniel Cameron died in 1884, and this bill was filed in September, 1886. The demurrer, on the ground of the statute of limitations, was rightly overruled. ' •

3. After the death of Daniel Cameron, as the bill avers, there was no administration on his estate, but his widow and children took possession of it, and still hold it. The bill charges that the personal assets were worth one thousand dollars, and the real estate, 280 acres, three thousand dollars. It is not stated whether there is homestead, or other exemption, and if there is, whether it will be claimed. If such claim should be made, the averred value of the land places it above the limit the law allows. On these averred facts, which on demurrer must be treated as true, the present bill contains equity, being the only remedy the complainant has. — Dunlap v. Newman, 47 Ala. 429; Adams v. Holcombe, 1 Harper Eq. 202; s. c., 14 Amer. Dec. 719; Shannon v. Dillon, 8 B. Mon. 389; s. c., 48 Amer. Dec. 394; 3 Pom. Eq. § 1154, p. 119.

There is nothing in the demurrer for multifariousness.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Fleming v. McGuffey
12 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 19 (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division, 1910)
De Coppet v. . Cone
92 N.E. 411 (New York Court of Appeals, 1910)
Rabitte v. Alabama Great Southern Ry. Co.
47 So. 573 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1908)
Winfrey v. Clarke
107 Ala. 355 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1894)
Girard v. Futterer
84 Ala. 323 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1887)
Byrd v. Jones
84 Ala. 336 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 Ala. 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cameron-v-cameron-ala-1886.