Helmetag v. Frank

61 Ala. 67
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedDecember 15, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 61 Ala. 67 (Helmetag v. Frank) 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
Helmetag v. Frank, 61 Ala. 67 (Ala. 1878).

Opinion

BRICKELL, C. J.

1. We regard it as the settled law of this State, that a gift by the husband to the wife of property real or personal, creates in the wife an equitable separate estate. Property thus acquired by the wife, is not within the influence and operation of the statutory or constitutional provisions which create separate estates. — McMillan v. Peacock, 57 Ala. 127, and authorities cited. An incident of an equitable separate estate, is the power of the wife to alienate or charge it, as if she were a femme sole, unless restrained by the instrument creating it. She may mortgage it as security for her own, or for the debt of her husband. — McMillan v. Peacock, supra.

2. It is also well settled, that the renewal of the evidence of a debt secured by mortgage, is not a payment; nor does it impair the lien of the mortgage. — Boyd v. Beck, 29 Ala. 703. The complainant consequently on the proof was entitled to a decree of foreclosure.

3. To support a final decree, the pleading and proof must correspond, and a variance between them, however clear may be the equity of the complainant, is fatal.— Crabb v. Thomas, 25 Ala. 212; Skinner v. Barney, 19 Ala. 698. The averment of the bill is that the husband was seized in fee of the premises, and that he and the wife alleged that he was seized in fee. The latter averment is immaterial and must be rejected as surplusage. The material fact which should have been stated, was as to the title of the wife, and that it was a title, which notwithstanding her coverture, she had capacity to transfer by mortgage. The title shown by the bill resided in the husband at the execution of the mortgage ; and though the wife may have joined in its execution, the legal consequence is, that thereby only her contingent right of dower was conveyed. The proof shows that the title resided in the wife, under a conveyance from the hus[70]*70band, creating an equitable separate estate, she had the capacity to charge by mortgage. The variance compels a reversal of the decree.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

W. T. Smith Lumber Co. v. Foshee
167 So. 2d 154 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1964)
Birmingham Securities Co. v. Southern University
55 So. 240 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1911)
Hobkirk v. Walrich
14 Colo. App. 181 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1899)
Manning v. Pippen
86 Ala. 357 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1888)
Maxwell v. Grace
85 Ala. 577 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1888)
Rabitte & Gaudin v. Orr Bros.
83 Ala. 185 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1887)
Loeb v. McCullough
78 Ala. 533 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1885)
Carrington v. Richardson
79 Ala. 101 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1885)
Washburn v. Gardner's Adm'r
76 Ala. 597 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1884)
Webb v. Crawford
77 Ala. 440 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1884)
Gluck v. Cox
75 Ala. 310 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1883)
Cabalan v. Monroe, Smaltz & Co.
70 Ala. 271 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1881)
Harden v. Darwin & Pulley
66 Ala. 55 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1880)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 Ala. 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helmetag-v-frank-ala-1878.