Conner v. Tuck
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Chancery Court at St. Clair. The bill was filed by the defendant in error. The material allegations are, that on the 8th June, 1836, one 'Abney being seized in fee of a tract of land, which is described, sold and executed to the plaintiff in error a deed in fee simple for the same.
Read the full summary
Error to the Chancery Court at St. Clair. The bill was filed by the defendant in error. The material allegations are, that on the 8th June, 1836, one 'Abney being seized in fee of a tract of land, which is described, sold and executed to the plaintiff in error a deed in fee simple for the same. That on the 11th December, • 1840, James M. Conner executed, and delivered to one Jesse Duren, a deed in fee simple, for the same land, the deed on its face expressing to be for the consideration of $3000, and that on the 16th February, 1841, Duren executed a title in fee to the complainant for the…
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
The parties litigant in this court, both admit the correctness of the decree of the chancellor as it respects the reformation of the deed from Abney and wife, to James M. Conner, by the restoration of his name as grantee in the deed, instead of that of David Conner, which, as the proof conclusively shows, had been falsely interpolated. The only question then arises out of the cross bill filed by J. M. Conner, in which it is alledged that his conveyance of the land to Duren, though absolute on its face, was executed, and delivered -to him upon a parol trust, that Duren should sell the land for…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cullum v. ErwinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1842
3Cited by2 opinions
- Garrett v. Garrett's HeirsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1856
- Burch v. CarterSupreme Court of Alabama · 1870