Bryant v. Peters
Supreme Court of Alabama
TPIE complainants describing themselves as the heirs and legal representatives, with the exception of one, who describes herself as the widow and relict of William Bryant, deceased, filed their bill in April, 1837, on the equity side of the Circuit Court of Tallapoosa.
Read the full summary
TPIE complainants describing themselves as the heirs and legal representatives, with the exception of one, who describes herself as the widow and relict of William Bryant, deceased, filed their bill in April, 1837, on the equity side of the Circuit Court of Tallapoosa. The bill, after stating the relationship of the complainants to decedent, alleges, that he “ obtained and amassed” a very considerable real and personal estate, some of which consisted of lands in the State of Georgia, and the residue of nine half sections of land in Tallapoosa county, and a valuable house and lot in the*city…
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.
A motion to dismiss a bill for want of equity, does not authorise the chancellor to look into the answer and proofs, if there be any, but it is to be determined upon an inspection ot the bill only; if that does not disclose a ease authorising the interference of chancery, according to our practice, it may be dismissed on motion, at any stage of the cause. The question then to be determined, is not, whether if the cause had been submitted for hearing on the bill, answer and exhibits, the decree should have been adverse to the complainants, but supposing the bill to be true (as for the purpose…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Schultz v. Pacific InsuranceSupreme Court of Florida · 1872
- McKinley v. IrvineSupreme Court of Alabama · 1848
- Calhoun v. KingSupreme Court of Alabama · 1843
- Fidelity and Deposit Company v. Edward E. Gillen CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019
- David v. ShepardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1867
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.