Tucker v. Morris

Supreme Court of Alabama

Tucker v. Morris

89 So. 271, 206 Ala. 123, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 29

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMay 19, 1921

Docket6 Div. 300.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 89 So. 271 (Tucker v. Morris) 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

Tucker v. Morris, 89 So. 271, 206 Ala. 123, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 29 (Ala. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

McCLELLAN, J.

On October 2, 1916, the complainant, appellee, filed this bill, against the appellant and others, as a judgment, and also a contract creditor of James L. Gilbert, deceased. By consent, the respondents other than this appellant were eliminated. The original bill sought the removal of the administration of Gilbert’s estate from the probate to the chancery court. After much sporadic activity in the cause, on the apparent assumption that the administration had in some way become removed from the probate to the chancery court, the complainant amended her bill (on January 14, 1921), by the addition thereto of paragraphs A to G, inclusive, as well as another prayer for removal of the administration, and for relief by way of discovery and enforced satisfaction of a demand that does not appear to be the same demand as that or as those described in the original bill. Nothing was taken out of the original bill by this amendment. The respondent demurred to the bill as amended on these grounds: A want of equity; departure from the original bill wrought by the introduction of the amendment; that only through conclusions of the pleader is it shown that the *124 probate court had not entered upon a final settlement of the estate.

[1-3] The court overruled the demurrer. This was proper under the authority of Rensford v. Magnus, 150 Ala. 288, 43 South. 853. Originally and as amended, the bill filed by a creditor possessed equity, and so without regard to the presence or absence of a special equity. The amendment was not a substitute for the original bill, it but added matter thereto. It struck therefrom no material averment. The allegation negativing the entry of the probate court upon final settlement of lire estate was an affirmation of fact, not a conclusion of the pleader. The demurrer was, as stated, properly overruled. The decree is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. J. and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

McCLELLAN, J.

On October 2, 1916, the complainant, appellee, filed this bill, against the appellant and others, as a judgment, and also a contract creditor of James L. Gilbert, deceased. By consent, the respondents other than this appellant were eliminated. The original bill sought the removal of the administration of Gilbert’s estate from the probate to the chancery court. After much sporadic activity in the cause, on the apparent assumption that the administration had in some way become removed from the probate to the chancery court, the complainant amended her bill (on January 14, 1921), by the addition thereto of paragraphs A to G, inclusive, as well as another prayer for removal of the administration, and for relief by way of discovery and enforced satisfaction of a demand that does not appear to be the same demand as that or as those described in the original bill. Nothing was taken out of the original bill by this amendment. The respondent demurred to the bill as amended on these grounds: A want of equity; departure from the original bill wrought by the introduction of the amendment; that only through conclusions of the pleader is it shown that the *124 probate court had not entered upon a final settlement of the estate.

[1-3] The court overruled the demurrer. This was proper under the authority of Rensford v. Magnus, 150 Ala. 288, 43 South. 853. Originally and as amended, the bill filed by a creditor possessed equity, and so without regard to the presence or absence of a special equity. The amendment was not a substitute for the original bill, it but added matter thereto. It struck therefrom no material averment. The allegation negativing the entry of the probate court upon final settlement of lire estate was an affirmation of fact, not a conclusion of the pleader. The demurrer was, as stated, properly overruled. The decree is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. J. and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 So. 271, 206 Ala. 123, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-v-morris-ala-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack