Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Alabama (Volume 142) (Paperback)


Book may have numerous typos, missing text, images, or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1906. Excerpt: ... Brannon v. Henry.] set forth in the deed, and that the deed is not within the qualification referred to.--Black v. Pratt, Coal dc Coke Co., 85 Ala. 504; DeJarnett v. McDaniel, 93 Ala. 215; Black v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. R. Co., 03 Ala. 109; Webb v. Elyton Land Co., 105 Ala. All; Dorian v. Westervitch, 37 So. Kep. 382. It follows that the court erred in sustaining the objections made to the deed, offered as it was, to show color of title merely. After the defendant as a witness in his own behalf had without objection, testified that he purchased the land described in the complaint from the State and paid $80.( 0 therefor, and that he immediately went into possession of it, and had been in possession of it ever since, the plaintiff moved to exclude this testimony because the deed under which he claims to have purchased, is void and shows on its face that it does not describe any land whatever. The court granted the motion and the defendant excepted. In this ruling we think the court erred. It will be noted that the only deed which had been offered by defendant, was on objection of the plaintiff not allowed in evidence, therefore, at the time the motion was made, there was no evidence that defendant was claiming under a deed, void or otherwise. Hence the specific ground of the motion was without foundation, and for this reason should have been overruled. But we think the evidence was not objectionable. It was certainly competent for the defendant to show that he went into possession of the land, and the evidence that he bought it and paid for it was relevant as tending to show the nature and character of the possession, and his claim, whether under bona fide claim of purchase.--Barron v. BaiTOn, 122 Ala. 194. It was not competent for the defendant when testifying to look at the de...

R673

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles6730
Mobicred@R63pm x 12* Mobicred Info
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

Book may have numerous typos, missing text, images, or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1906. Excerpt: ... Brannon v. Henry.] set forth in the deed, and that the deed is not within the qualification referred to.--Black v. Pratt, Coal dc Coke Co., 85 Ala. 504; DeJarnett v. McDaniel, 93 Ala. 215; Black v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. R. Co., 03 Ala. 109; Webb v. Elyton Land Co., 105 Ala. All; Dorian v. Westervitch, 37 So. Kep. 382. It follows that the court erred in sustaining the objections made to the deed, offered as it was, to show color of title merely. After the defendant as a witness in his own behalf had without objection, testified that he purchased the land described in the complaint from the State and paid $80.( 0 therefor, and that he immediately went into possession of it, and had been in possession of it ever since, the plaintiff moved to exclude this testimony because the deed under which he claims to have purchased, is void and shows on its face that it does not describe any land whatever. The court granted the motion and the defendant excepted. In this ruling we think the court erred. It will be noted that the only deed which had been offered by defendant, was on objection of the plaintiff not allowed in evidence, therefore, at the time the motion was made, there was no evidence that defendant was claiming under a deed, void or otherwise. Hence the specific ground of the motion was without foundation, and for this reason should have been overruled. But we think the evidence was not objectionable. It was certainly competent for the defendant to show that he went into possession of the land, and the evidence that he bought it and paid for it was relevant as tending to show the nature and character of the possession, and his claim, whether under bona fide claim of purchase.--Barron v. BaiTOn, 122 Ala. 194. It was not competent for the defendant when testifying to look at the de...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

General Books LLC

Country of origin

United States

Release date

2012

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

2012

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 18mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

330

ISBN-13

978-1-153-95406-8

Barcode

9781153954068

Categories

LSN

1-153-95406-0



Trending On Loot