Everett v. Cooper

Supreme Court of Alabama

Everett v. Cooper

75 So. 332, 200 Ala. 20, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 274

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedApril 19, 1917

Docket3 Div. 270.

StatusPublished

This text of 75 So. 332 (Everett v. Cooper) 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

Everett v. Cooper, 75 So. 332, 200 Ala. 20, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 274 (Ala. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

McCLELLAN, J.

The appellant filed this bill against appellee, seeking the declaration by the court that the property described therein in fact belonged to her and an order compelling appellee to convey it to. her in avoidance of his act, in breach of confidence, in taking a conveyance in his, .instead of her, name. The appellant’s counsel assert that the controlling inquiry in the cause was whether the appellee made a gift to the appellant of $2,000, which money she later committed to his custody for the express purpose of discharging a lien on the property, held by another, and to effect her investment with the unclouded title thereto. In accordance with the provision of the act approved September 22, 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 705); the judge of the city court, sitting in equity, heard an oral examination of all the witnesses, and thereupon reached a conclusion unfavorable to the appellant (complainant) on the issue of fact indicated. The conclusion of the judge of the city court being the result of a hearing where the witnesses were examined ore tenus, this court cannot, under i.ts practices, disturb the decree, unless it is plainly erroneous. Woodrow v. Hawving, 105 Ala. 240, 16 South. 720; among others in its line.

The whole evidence has been carefully read and considered, and this court is not convinced that the conclusion attained was erroneous. ■

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. X, and SAYRE and GARDNER, JJ., concur.

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

McCLELLAN, J.

The appellant filed this bill against appellee, seeking the declaration by the court that the property described therein in fact belonged to her and an order compelling appellee to convey it to. her in avoidance of his act, in breach of confidence, in taking a conveyance in his, .instead of her, name. The appellant’s counsel assert that the controlling inquiry in the cause was whether the appellee made a gift to the appellant of $2,000, which money she later committed to his custody for the express purpose of discharging a lien on the property, held by another, and to effect her investment with the unclouded title thereto. In accordance with the provision of the act approved September 22, 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 705); the judge of the city court, sitting in equity, heard an oral examination of all the witnesses, and thereupon reached a conclusion unfavorable to the appellant (complainant) on the issue of fact indicated. The conclusion of the judge of the city court being the result of a hearing where the witnesses were examined ore tenus, this court cannot, under i.ts practices, disturb the decree, unless it is plainly erroneous. Woodrow v. Hawving, 105 Ala. 240, 16 South. 720; among others in its line.

The whole evidence has been carefully read and considered, and this court is not convinced that the conclusion attained was erroneous. ■

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. X, and SAYRE and GARDNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 So. 332, 200 Ala. 20, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/everett-v-cooper-ala-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack