Wilkinson v. Wilkinson

129 Ala. 279
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedNovember 15, 1900
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 129 Ala. 279 (Wilkinson v. Wilkinson) 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
Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 129 Ala. 279 (Ala. 1900).

Opinion

TYSON, J.

The bill seeks to have certain conveyances declared void and cancelled. The material allegations of the bill upon •which this relief is predicated may be stated to be these: That during the year 1880, the complainant was taken violently ill and became insane, and has never subsequent to said date been compos men-tis or of sound mind; that in July, 1885, he executed to his son, H. /. Wilkinson, a deed to certain real estate while he was insane, and incapacitated and incapable of contracting; that H. Z. Wilkinson, in 1888, executed a mortgage to his co-respondents’ testator. It sufficiently appears that complainant was out of the possession of the lands.

There was a motion to dismiss the 'bill for want of equity and a demurrer to it on the ground that the complainant has adequate remedy at law.

The deed was absolutely void, not merely voidable, and therefore a nullity. Being void, no title passed by [282]*282it to I-I. Z. Wilkinson, and, of course, the -mortgage executed by him'conveyed none.—Daugherty v. Powe, 127 Ala. 577, and authorities therein cited; Beach on Modern Law -of Contracts.

■Complainant being insane and his deed a nullity on that account, it is of no consequence that-it was procured by arts -and misrepresentations.

The deed being absolutely void at law, no necessity exists for invoking the exercise of the jurisdiction of a court of equity to have it declared void. As the law affords a plain and adequate remedy for a recovery of the possession of the lands, the bill is without equity.—Daniel v. Stewart, 55 Ala. 278; Tyson v. Brown, 64 Ala. 244; Peeples v. Burns, 77 Ala. 290; Smith v. Cockrell, 66 Ala. 47; Arnett v. Bailey, 60 Ala. 435; Lehman v. Shook, 69 Ala. 496; Curry v. Peebles, 83 Ala. 225; Armstrong v. Connor, 86 Ala. 350; Williams v. Lawrence, 123 Ala. 588; Brown v. Hunter, 121 Ala. 210, and cases -cited therein.

The decree of the chancery court will he reversed and a decree will he here rendered dismissing the bill.

Reversed and rendered.

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

Related

Wells v. Wells
49 So. 3d 216 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2010)
Stallworth v. Ward
31 So. 2d 324 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1947)
Garrett v. Brewton
25 So. 2d 158 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1946)
Scott v. Leigeber
18 So. 2d 275 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1944)
Tyler v. Copham
16 So. 2d 316 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1944)
Holmes v. Riley
196 So. 888 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1940)
White v. Hale
175 So. 288 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1937)
Jackson v. American Bank & Trust Co.
172 So. 600 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1937)
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Bramlett
140 So. 752 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1932)
Hobson v. Robertson
138 So. 548 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1931)
Davidson v. Brown
110 So. 384 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1926)
Miles v. Johanson
238 P. 291 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1925)
Harris v. Jones
65 So. 956 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1915)
Thomas v. Holden
67 So. 992 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1915)
Sellers v. Knight
64 So. 329 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1913)
Mitchell v. Baldwin
45 So. 715 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1908)
Walker v. Winn
142 Ala. 560 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1904)
Wilkinson v. Lehman-Durr Co.
136 Ala. 463 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1902)
Boddie v. Bush
136 Ala. 560 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1902)
Galloway v. Hendon
131 Ala. 280 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1901)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
129 Ala. 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilkinson-v-wilkinson-ala-1900.