Legal Opinion
Layton v. Hamilton
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided March 25, 1926No. 6 Div. 441PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.
The principle has long been settled in this state that an administrator or executor may recover possession of his decedent’s lands from any person who does not show a termination of the decedent’s title or á better title in himself. Golding v. Golding, 24 Ala. 122; Russell v. Erwin, 41 Ala. 292; McCullough v. Wise, 57 Ala. 623; Watson v. Prestwood, 79 Ala. 416; Sullivan v. Rabb, 5 So. 746, 86 Ala. 433.
It is also well settled that a personal representative cannot recover such lands from his decedent's heirs or devisees, or their grantees, unless he affirmatively shows a case of necessity…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Potts v. ColemanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
- Tennessee & Coosa Railroad v. East Alabama Railway Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1883
- Dodge v. Irvington Land Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1908
- Anders v. SandlinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914
- Golding v. Golding's Adm'rSupreme Court of Alabama · 1854
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Lee v. GainesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1943
- Hancock v. WattSupreme Court of Alabama · 1936
- Smelser v. TrentSupreme Court of Alabama · 1997
- Wingard v. RandallSupreme Court of Alabama · 1959
- Walker County v. BurdeshawSupreme Court of Alabama · 1936
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.