Langley v. Shanks
This text of 75 So. 924 (Langley v. Shanks) 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.
Opinion
The “record further shows that the complaint was amended by striking all parties defendants [meaning plaintiffs, we suppose] except Augusta Shanks and Mary Langley, and further that Mary Langley was a niece of Susan Littlefield, deceased.”
We have not been able to find In the record any such amendment. Since all of the plaintiffs in statutory ejectment must recover or none can recover (Dake v. Sewell, 145 Ala, 581, 585, 39 South. 819; Knight v. Hunter, 155 Ala. 238, 46 South. 235) and, since the record discloses no evidence tending to show the right of all the plaintiffs to recover, the defendants were entitled to the general affirmative charge requested in their behalf.
A. J. Langley and Mrs. Thompson were not competent to testify to what took place upon the occasion of the execution of the deed to them by Mrs. Littlefield, sip.ee deceased. Code, § 4007.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
75 So. 924, 200 Ala. 176, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langley-v-shanks-ala-1917.