Lide v. Lide's Adm'r
This text of 32 Ala. 449 (Lide v. Lide's Adm'r) 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
Upon the authority of our former decisions, we hold, that the declarations of the plaintiff’s intestate, in opposition to his own, and in favor of his wife’s title, and which tended to show that the possession of the slaves by him was not held by him in the character of husband, but in the character of trustee for his wife, were legal evidence against the plaintiff; and that the court below erred in excluding them from the jury. — Gillespie v. Burleson, 28 Ala. 551; Machem v. Machem, 28 Ala. 374; Crabb v. Thomas, 25 Ala. 212; Jennings v. Blocker, 25 Ala. 415; Calvert v. Morrow, 18 Ala. 67; Oden v. Stubblefield, 4 Ala. 40; Miller v. Jones, 29 Ala. 174.
We think the authorities above cited will probably enable the court below to try the case properly. For that reason, and the additional one, that the appellant does not insist on the other points embraced by the assignment of errors, we leave those other points open and untouched.
For the error in excluding the declarations or admissions of plaintiff”s intestate, the judgment of the court below is reversed, aud the cause remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
32 Ala. 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lide-v-lides-admr-ala-1858.