Thomas v. Barker

Supreme Court of Alabama

Thomas v. Barker

37 Ala. 392

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 15, 1861

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 37 Ala. 392 (Thomas v. Barker) 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

Thomas v. Barker, 37 Ala. 392 (Ala. 1861).

Pincite

Opinion

STONE, J.

“ 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

STONE, J.

“ 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 Ala. 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-barker-ala-1861.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack