Carr v. Miller

Supreme Court of Alabama

Carr v. Miller

49 So. 802, 161 Ala. 658, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 146

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMay 20, 1909

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 49 So. 802 (Carr v. Miller) 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

Carr v. Miller, 49 So. 802, 161 Ala. 658, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 146 (Ala. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

SAYRE, J.

Statutory action of ejectment by the appellee against the appellant. The plaintiff traced title, passing by sufficient muniments, from the defendant into himself, and then, probably anticipating the defense, proved the execution and delivery of a deed by himself to E. G. McNeill before suit brought, and that at the date of the last-mentioned deed the defendant was in posession of the land, holding the same adversely. To the case thus shown section 1530 of the Code of 1896, as amended by section 3839 of the Code of 1907, had no application. — Section 10, Code 1907. As the law then was, the deed from plaintiff to McNeill, though valid between the parties, was void as against the defendant. - — 3 Brick. Dig. p. 18, § 51. It conferred no rights against the defendant, and he could claim no benefits or defenses under it. — Davis v. Curry, 85 Ala. 133, 4 South. 734. Under the ' circumstances, which were shown without contradiction, the deed from plaintiff to McNeill was a warrant of attorney to McNeill to sue in ejectment in plaintiff’s name. A suit by plaintiff to the use of McNeill would operate as an estoppel on plaintiff to deny, as against McNeill, the latter’s title. But these-were matters between plaintiff and MeNeill, with which defendant had no concern. Under the undisputed evidence, the plaintiff was entitled to recover.

Affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and Anderson and McClellan, JJ... concur.

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

SAYRE, J.

Statutory action of ejectment by the appellee against the appellant. The plaintiff traced title, passing by sufficient muniments, from the defendant into himself, and then, probably anticipating the defense, proved the execution and delivery of a deed by himself to E. G. McNeill before suit brought, and that at the date of the last-mentioned deed the defendant was in posession of the land, holding the same adversely. To the case thus shown section 1530 of the Code of 1896, as amended by section 3839 of the Code of 1907, had no application. — Section 10, Code 1907. As the law then was, the deed from plaintiff to McNeill, though valid between the parties, was void as against the defendant. - — 3 Brick. Dig. p. 18, § 51. It conferred no rights against the defendant, and he could claim no benefits or defenses under it. — Davis v. Curry, 85 Ala. 133, 4 South. 734. Under the ' circumstances, which were shown without contradiction, the deed from plaintiff to McNeill was a warrant of attorney to McNeill to sue in ejectment in plaintiff’s name. A suit by plaintiff to the use of McNeill would operate as an estoppel on plaintiff to deny, as against McNeill, the latter’s title. But these-were matters between plaintiff and MeNeill, with which defendant had no concern. Under the undisputed evidence, the plaintiff was entitled to recover.

Affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and Anderson and McClellan, JJ... concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 So. 802, 161 Ala. 658, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carr-v-miller-ala-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack