Steele v. Crute
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.
The bill was in chancery, and eventuated in the decrees from which the appeal is taken by the non compos mentis represented through and by a general guardian duly appointed, qualified, and acting.
The requirement for observation of chancery rule 75 is sufficiently shown by the record (page 33%). Potts v. Court of Com’rs, 203 Ala. 300, 303, 82 South. 550; Blackburn v. Moore, 206 Ala. 335, 89 South. 745.
The application of common sense in the interpretation of wills has evolved cardinal rules of construction; the testator’s intention, if legal, is the law of the instrument, and must be gathered…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Hodge v. JoySupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
- Murphree v. HansonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
- Pearce v. PearceSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
- Winsett v. WinsettSupreme Court of Alabama · 1919
- Lee v. LeeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1876
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Clark v. WhitfieldSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
- Crowson v. CodySupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
- Helms v. TullisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1981
- Frazer v. First Nat. Bank of MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1938
- Powell v. PearsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.