Dempsey, Harrel & Co. v. Stapleton
This text of 46 Ala. 383 (Dempsey, Harrel & Co. v. Stapleton) 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.
Opinion
B. E. SAEE0LD, J.
The proof does not tend to establish any right in the plaintiff to recover the money. His intestate does not appear to have accounted for it. It [384]*384either belonged to the estate of Gunn, in which case an administrator de bonis non of bis estate is the proper person to sue, or to his widow. If her quarantine was not otherwise settled, she might have recovered its value from the representatives of her husband’s estate by a suit at law, as the corpus of her separate estate. — Boynton v. Sawyer and Wife, 35 Ala. 497. If the money now sued for was a part of it, it was properly paid to her.
The charge that the jury must find for the plaintiff, was erroneous.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
46 Ala. 383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dempsey-harrel-co-v-stapleton-ala-1871.