Mobile & Montgomery Railway Co. v. Wilkinson
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Butler. Tried before the Hon. JaMes E. Cobb. cited Mead v. Steger, 5 Porter, 498; Adams v. Thomas, 54 Ala. 175; Paysant v. Ware dé Barringer, 1 Ala. 160; Beard v. White, 1 Ala. 436; TIai/r v. LaBrouse, 10 Ala. 548; Murphy v. Br. Bank, 16 Ala. 90; Evans v. Bell, 20 Ala. 509; Bryant v. Stephens, 58 Ala. 636; Couch v. Woodji'uff, 63 Ala. 466; 1 Greenl. Ev. §§ 285, 304.
1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.
The question presented is one of estoppel, based on the recital of a particular consideration in a deed. In August, 1880, Wilkinson, tire appellee, and his wife, conveyed to the appellant railroad company a certain lot, or parcel of land, in the town of Greenville. The consideration of the deed is recited to have been the sum of “ one dollar ” paid to the grantors, and “ the benefits which will arise to the grantors from the ownership by the grantee of the property [therein] conveyed.”
It was proposed by the plaintiff, on the trial, to show by parol testimony another consideration for the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Wilkinson v. ScottMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1821
- Davenport v. MasonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1818
- Henry v. Murphy & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1875
- Goodspeed v. FullerSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1858
- McGehee v. RumpSupreme Court of Alabama · 1861
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Manning v. PippenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1888
- London v. G. L. Anderson Brass WorksSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
- Ohmer v. BoyerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1889
- Mobile Savings Bank v. McDonnellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1889
- Hamaker v. CoonsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1897
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.