King v. Coffee

131 So. 796, 222 Ala. 248, 1930 Ala. LEXIS 530
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedNovember 6, 1930
Docket8 Div. 190.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 131 So. 796 (King v. Coffee) 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
King v. Coffee, 131 So. 796, 222 Ala. 248, 1930 Ala. LEXIS 530 (Ala. 1930).

Opinion

FOSTER, J.

This is a statutory suit to quiet the title of certain land specially described. The only issue is whether a deed, therein referred to, conveyed the title to complainant and his wife jointly, and, also, the effect upon the title of a suit by complainant to reform the deed, resulting in a decree denying relief and dismissing the cause.

After a decree against complainant’s contention was entered in this cause, he died. There has been entered an order of revival in the name of his executrix, and as such she has *249 appealed. In a companion case we treated the same questions as are here involved. 131 So. 792. 1 The result of this case is controlled by what was there said. Based upon that one, we conclude that appellees, heirs of Lucy S. King, deceased, have no right or title to or interest or claim in the land described in the bill in this cause. A decree will be here entered to that effect.

Reversed and rendered.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.
1

Ante, p. 245.

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

Related

Pope v. Burgess
53 S.E.2d 159 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
131 So. 796, 222 Ala. 248, 1930 Ala. LEXIS 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-coffee-ala-1930.