Dial v. Hair
Supreme Court of Alabama
■ Error to the Chancery Court of Sumter. Tried before the Hon. J. W. Le.sesne. The bill shows that the right asserted is a fraud on the preemption law.
Read the full summary
■ Error to the Chancery Court of Sumter. Tried before the Hon. J. W. Le.sesne. The bill shows that the right asserted is a fraud on the preemption law. The land was obtained by a contract, that;the eider Dial should have a moiety, entered into before a pre-emption certificate issued. — Martin v. Tennison, 13 Ala. 29; .12 tb. 667; 7 Port. 58; 2 ib. 148. Tlie Orphans’ Court is one of limited statutory jurisdiction, and all facts necessary to give it jurisdiction must affirmatively appear.— Lister v. Virian, 8 Port. 374; Lightfoot v. Lewis’ Heirs, 1 Ala. 473. There was no estate in decedent,…
1Opinion of the CourtDargan, C. J.
Tlie material facts brought to our notice by the bill, may be thus stated: In the year JS33, it was agreed between Jeremiah Dial and John Dial, his son, who was then a minor, that John should take possession of the north-west quarter of section eight, township nineteen, range two, west, being land lying in the Detnopolis district, and occupy the same, until he should become entitled to a pre-emption thereto according to the laws of Congress, and that the title should be procured in the name of the son ; but the father was to pay the government for it, and when the sett became of age, he was…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Kreamer v. EarlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Drexler v. TyrrellNevada Supreme Court · 1880
- Evans v. KittrellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1859
- Matthews v. MatthewsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1973
- Scheible v. BachoSupreme Court of Alabama · 1868
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.