Kelly v. Hendricks

57 Ala. 193
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedDecember 15, 1876
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 57 Ala. 193 (Kelly v. Hendricks) 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
Kelly v. Hendricks, 57 Ala. 193 (Ala. 1876).

Opinion

BRICKELL, C. J.

It is settled by former decisions that in an action of ejectment, or the corresponding real action prescribed by statute, a plaintiff showing a superior legal title must recover whatever may be the equities of the parties. The defendant may be the vendee of the plaintiff, in possession, holding the plaintiff’s bond for title, on the payment of the purchase money, and may have fully paid it, entitling himslfto a specific performance, yet the legal title of the plaintiff must prevail at law, and the defendant must resort to equity for relief. — 1 Brick. Dig. 627, §§ 34, 35, 36; •or, it may be that the defendant by the fraud of the plaintiff has been induced to become the purchaser of the lands from another; yet, if the plaintiff has the superior legal title, it must prevail, and the defendant must seek relief in equity, where the fraud can be made to operate directly on the title, and the court can decree a conveyance of it, and then unite the legal title with the equitable title.”—McPherson v. Walters, 16 Ala. 714; Gimon v. Davis, 36 Ala. 589.. If it be true the appellant was induced to purchase the land by the verbal representations of the trustee and the beneficiary in the deed of trust, these representations may operate an -equitable estoppel against the assertion of the legal title conveyed by the deed of trust, yet in a court of law there can be no estoppel affecting the title to the land, which is not in ■writing, for at law the title can pass only by writing.

The rulings of the Circuit Court were in accordance with these views, and its judgment must be affirmed.

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

Related

Hinkle v. Posey
63 So. 2d 809 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1953)
Moorer v. Tensaw Land & Timber Co.
20 So. 2d 105 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1944)
Cox v. Cox
95 So. 275 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1923)
Ivy v. Hood
79 So. 587 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1918)
United States v. Porto Rico Railway, Light, & Power Co.
9 P.R. Fed. 355 (D. Puerto Rico, 1917)
Dinkins v. Latham
45 So. 60 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1907)
Ala. Gt. Southern R. R. v. South & North Ala. R. R.
84 Ala. 570 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1887)
Standifer v. Swann
78 Ala. 88 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1884)
Simmons v. Simmons
78 Ala. 365 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1884)
Hooper v. Columbus & Western Railway Co.
78 Ala. 213 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1884)
Fielder v. Childs
73 Ala. 567 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1883)
Allen v. Kellam
69 Ala. 442 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1881)
Baines v. Barnes
64 Ala. 375 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1879)
Hendricks v. Kelly
64 Ala. 388 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 Ala. 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-hendricks-ala-1876.