Hale v. St. Clair

Supreme Court of Alabama

Hale v. St. Clair

130 So. 917, 222 Ala. 706

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedOctober 16, 1930

Docket7 Div. 961.

StatusPublished

This text of 130 So. 917 (Hale v. St. Clair) 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

Hale v. St. Clair, 130 So. 917, 222 Ala. 706 (Ala. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

SAYRE, J.

Appellee h-ad a decree in accordance with the prayer of his bill that a certain deed of trust or mortgage which he had executed and delivered to appellants’ intestate, along with two promissory notes secured thereby, be canceled as having been paid in full. Appellants, as administrators -of the estate of the deceased mortgagee, claimed that there was a balance due on the debt evidenced by the two promissory notes made to their intestate, and prayed for.a decree of foreclosure.

The difference between the parties is a difference of fact only, and, after careful consideration, the court here is in agreement with the trial court that the debt between appellants’ intestate and appellee had been satisfied in full in the lifetime of decedent and before the bill was filed. This we say after excluding from consideration any and every part of the testimony of complainant which is affected by section 7721 of the Code, providing, inter alia, that “no person having a pecuniary interest in the result of the suit or proceeding shall be allowed to testify against the party to whom his interest is opposed -as to any transaction with, or statement by, the deceased person whose estate is interested in the result of the suit or proceeding.” There is no need- to indulge a more intimate discussion of the evidence. The court is of opinion that the evidence not affected by the statute suffices to sustain the decree in the court below.

Affirmed.

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

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

SAYRE, J.

Appellee h-ad a decree in accordance with the prayer of his bill that a certain deed of trust or mortgage which he had executed and delivered to appellants’ intestate, along with two promissory notes secured thereby, be canceled as having been paid in full. Appellants, as administrators -of the estate of the deceased mortgagee, claimed that there was a balance due on the debt evidenced by the two promissory notes made to their intestate, and prayed for.a decree of foreclosure.

The difference between the parties is a difference of fact only, and, after careful consideration, the court here is in agreement with the trial court that the debt between appellants’ intestate and appellee had been satisfied in full in the lifetime of decedent and before the bill was filed. This we say after excluding from consideration any and every part of the testimony of complainant which is affected by section 7721 of the Code, providing, inter alia, that “no person having a pecuniary interest in the result of the suit or proceeding shall be allowed to testify against the party to whom his interest is opposed -as to any transaction with, or statement by, the deceased person whose estate is interested in the result of the suit or proceeding.” There is no need- to indulge a more intimate discussion of the evidence. The court is of opinion that the evidence not affected by the statute suffices to sustain the decree in the court below.

Affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 So. 917, 222 Ala. 706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hale-v-st-clair-ala-1930.