Thomas v. Barker
37 Ala. 392
Opinion
“ Evidence maybe received of a considera-tion not mentioned in a deed, provided it be not inconsistent with the consideration expressed in it.” — 1 Greenl. Ev. 285, 304; Jeffrey v. Walton, 1 Stark. Rep. 267.— The proof in 'this case did not change the nature or legal effect of the writing: .it only established an additional consideration, not mentioned, in tlie deed, but yet not inconsistent with it. It was properly admitted. — Dixon v. Barclay, 22 Ala. 370 ; Eckles & Brown v. Carter, 26 Ala. 563 ; Hair v. Little, 28 Ala. 236.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Thomas v. Barker, 37 Ala. 392 (Ala. 1861).
37 Ala. 392 (Thomas v. Barker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Berman v. Geller
90 N.E.2d 843 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1950)
Baker v. Horsley
101 So. 830 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1924)
Cheesman v. Nicholl
18 Colo. App. 174 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1902)
Mobile & Montgomery Railway Co. v. Wilkinson
72 Ala. 286 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1882)
Wilkerson v. Tillman
66 Ala. 532 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1880)
Reader v. Helms
57 Ala. 440 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1876)
Henry v. Murphy & Co.
54 Ala. 246 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1875)
Cowan v. Cooper
41 Ala. 187 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1867)