Weaver v. First Nat. Bank of Opp

Supreme Court of Alabama

Weaver v. First Nat. Bank of Opp

136 So. 735, 223 Ala. 446, 1931 Ala. LEXIS 435

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 18, 1931

Docket4 Div. 546.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 136 So. 735 (Weaver v. First Nat. Bank of Opp) 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

Weaver v. First Nat. Bank of Opp, 136 So. 735, 223 Ala. 446, 1931 Ala. LEXIS 435 (Ala. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

*448 BROWN, J.

The instrument attached as Exhibit “Two” to the bill, and made a part thereof, was given to secure the payment of a loan of property and money made by the complainant, J. B. Weaver, to his father, J. E. Weaver, for his life, and constituted an equitable lien upon the property of which the said Weaver died seized and possessed, which a court of equity will enforce. Donald & Co. v. Hewitt, 33 Ala. 534, 73 Am. Dec, 431; Wood v. Holly Mfg. Co., 100 Ala. 326, 13 So. 948, 46 Am. St. Rep. 56; Bolman et al. v. Overall, Ex’r, et al., 80 Ala. 451, 2 So. 624, 60 Am. Rep. 107; 10 R. C. L. 273, §§ 44, 45 and 46.

The instrument or contract contemplated that the father, J. E. Weaver, should have the' use of the property and money, over and above $400, directed to be used in discharging the obligation .to Vaughn, and, if the father’s estate was sufficient to repay the balance of the principal, after discharging the just debts and obligation of said J. E. Weaver, it would be repaid out of the estate.

To this extent the funds in the hands of the executor, after paying the just debts of the said J. E. AVeaver, and the bequest to Mattie Strickland, made because of services rendered by her to the said J. E. Weaver and his deceased wife, should be impressed with a trust for the payment of the indebtedness to complainant. Bolman et al. v. Overall, Ex’r, et al., supra.

So far as appears, no detriment resulted from the purchase by complainant of the lands belonging to the estate from the executor; nor was the complainant benefited above what any other person would have been if such third person had purchased. There is therefore nothing in such transaction upon which an estoppel in pais may be rested.

The court erred in sustaining the demurrers to the bill, and the decree is reversed.

Reversed and remanded.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE and THOMAS, JJ., conjcur.

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

*448 BROWN, J.

The instrument attached as Exhibit “Two” to the bill, and made a part thereof, was given to secure the payment of a loan of property and money made by the complainant, J. B. Weaver, to his father, J. E. Weaver, for his life, and constituted an equitable lien upon the property of which the said Weaver died seized and possessed, which a court of equity will enforce. Donald & Co. v. Hewitt, 33 Ala. 534, 73 Am. Dec, 431; Wood v. Holly Mfg. Co., 100 Ala. 326, 13 So. 948, 46 Am. St. Rep. 56; Bolman et al. v. Overall, Ex’r, et al., 80 Ala. 451, 2 So. 624, 60 Am. Rep. 107; 10 R. C. L. 273, §§ 44, 45 and 46.

The instrument or contract contemplated that the father, J. E. Weaver, should have the' use of the property and money, over and above $400, directed to be used in discharging the obligation .to Vaughn, and, if the father’s estate was sufficient to repay the balance of the principal, after discharging the just debts and obligation of said J. E. Weaver, it would be repaid out of the estate.

To this extent the funds in the hands of the executor, after paying the just debts of the said J. E. AVeaver, and the bequest to Mattie Strickland, made because of services rendered by her to the said J. E. Weaver and his deceased wife, should be impressed with a trust for the payment of the indebtedness to complainant. Bolman et al. v. Overall, Ex’r, et al., supra.

So far as appears, no detriment resulted from the purchase by complainant of the lands belonging to the estate from the executor; nor was the complainant benefited above what any other person would have been if such third person had purchased. There is therefore nothing in such transaction upon which an estoppel in pais may be rested.

The court erred in sustaining the demurrers to the bill, and the decree is reversed.

Reversed and remanded.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE and THOMAS, JJ., conjcur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 So. 735, 223 Ala. 446, 1931 Ala. LEXIS 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weaver-v-first-nat-bank-of-opp-ala-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack