Lord v. Folmar & Son
57 Ala. 615
Opinion
The deed offered in evidence, being without a subscribing witness, and without acknowledgment, was inoperative as a conveyance of title, and should not have been received in evidence. — Code of 1876, § 2145; Hendon v. White, 52 Ala. 597.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Lord v. Folmar & Son, 57 Ala. 615 (Ala. 1877).
57 Ala. 615 (Lord v. Folmar & Son) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
O'Neal v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad
140 Ala. 378 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1903)
Caperton v. Hall
3 So. 234 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1887)
Chadwick v. Carson
78 Ala. 116 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1884)
Doe ex dem. Evans v. Richardson
76 Ala. 329 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1884)
Dugger v. Collins
69 Ala. 324 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1881)
Stewart v. Beard
69 Ala. 470 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1881)
Stubbs v. Kahn & Brother
64 Ala. 186 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1879)