Godbey v. Godbey

Supreme Court of Alabama

Godbey v. Godbey

87 So. 85, 204 Ala. 585, 1920 Ala. LEXIS 284

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedOctober 28, 1920

Docket8 Div. 233.

StatusPublished

This text of 87 So. 85 (Godbey v. Godbey) 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

Godbey v. Godbey, 87 So. 85, 204 Ala. 585, 1920 Ala. LEXIS 284 (Ala. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

SAYRE, J.

Appellant filed this bill seeking the sale of a certain parcel of land in lieu of partition in kind. Appellant’s interest in the land was denied, the averment being that she had conveyed the same to some of the parties defendant, and upon final hearing upon pleading and proof the bill was dismissed.

Appellant and several of the defendant-appellees had inherited their interest from their father. Three of appellees, Moore by name, had inherited their interest from S. Moore, their father. These last-named appellees claimed the interest which had descended to appellant in virtue of a conveyance alleged to have been executed by appellant and two other heirs of ’ their father. The divesting of appellant’s interest was not otherwise shown. The original of the conveyance was not offered in evidence, nor was it shown that it had been lost or destroyed, or that appellees had not the custody or control thereof. Nevertheless a certified transcript of the deed, as recorded, was received in evidence over appellants objection. This was error. Acree v. Shaw, 202 Ala. 433, 80 South. 817.

It results that the decree must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and BROWN, JJ., concur.

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

SAYRE, J.

Appellant filed this bill seeking the sale of a certain parcel of land in lieu of partition in kind. Appellant’s interest in the land was denied, the averment being that she had conveyed the same to some of the parties defendant, and upon final hearing upon pleading and proof the bill was dismissed.

Appellant and several of the defendant-appellees had inherited their interest from their father. Three of appellees, Moore by name, had inherited their interest from S. Moore, their father. These last-named appellees claimed the interest which had descended to appellant in virtue of a conveyance alleged to have been executed by appellant and two other heirs of ’ their father. The divesting of appellant’s interest was not otherwise shown. The original of the conveyance was not offered in evidence, nor was it shown that it had been lost or destroyed, or that appellees had not the custody or control thereof. Nevertheless a certified transcript of the deed, as recorded, was received in evidence over appellants objection. This was error. Acree v. Shaw, 202 Ala. 433, 80 South. 817.

It results that the decree must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and BROWN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 So. 85, 204 Ala. 585, 1920 Ala. LEXIS 284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/godbey-v-godbey-ala-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack