Mulcahy v. Mulcahy

Supreme Court of Alabama

Mulcahy v. Mulcahy

84 So. 752, 203 Ala. 521, 1919 Ala. LEXIS 80

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedDecember 18, 1919

Docket3 Div. 424.

StatusPublished

This text of 84 So. 752 (Mulcahy v. Mulcahy) 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

Mulcahy v. Mulcahy, 84 So. 752, 203 Ala. 521, 1919 Ala. LEXIS 80 (Ala. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

SAYRE, J.

This court, trying this Cause de novo, is not satisfied on the record that appellee has a good title to the Monroe street property which he proposes to substitute for the interest of his .children in the property on Alabama street. True, appellee testifies that he owns the property- in fee, but that may be, probably is, nothing more than the opinion of a layman on a question of title, which in many cáses involves considerations of great technical importance. We do not *522 for a moment doubt the entire good faith of appellee’s statement, still it remains to be said that no purchaser for value would accept a title without further certification, and so we think the trial court should have had some further and more satisfactory proof of the title in this case. In every other respect the record is free from error.

Reversed and remanded.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and BROWN, JJ., concur.

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

SAYRE, J.

This court, trying this Cause de novo, is not satisfied on the record that appellee has a good title to the Monroe street property which he proposes to substitute for the interest of his .children in the property on Alabama street. True, appellee testifies that he owns the property- in fee, but that may be, probably is, nothing more than the opinion of a layman on a question of title, which in many cáses involves considerations of great technical importance. We do not *522 for a moment doubt the entire good faith of appellee’s statement, still it remains to be said that no purchaser for value would accept a title without further certification, and so we think the trial court should have had some further and more satisfactory proof of the title in this case. In every other respect the record is free from error.

Reversed and remanded.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and BROWN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 So. 752, 203 Ala. 521, 1919 Ala. LEXIS 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mulcahy-v-mulcahy-ala-1919.