Pool v. Cummings
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Chancery Court of Tuskaloosa. Tried before the Hon. W. W. Mason. • On the part of the plaintiff in error, Moody, it 'is insisted that he has a good and perfect title to the lands described in his answer, which ought to have been recognized by the court below.
Read the full summary
Error to the Chancery Court of Tuskaloosa. Tried before the Hon. W. W. Mason. • On the part of the plaintiff in error, Moody, it 'is insisted that he has a good and perfect title to the lands described in his answer, which ought to have been recognized by the court below. His note is dated 2d January, 1887; bis judgment, 5tb February, 1839; bis deed, 5th August, 1839. The alleged agreement is dated 12th January, 1837; the patents are dated 20th September, 1839. Moody’s answer, responding to the bill, denies the allegation that the lands he claims were entered in copartnership; but, on the…
1Opinion of the CourtChilton, J.
'This was a bill in chancery, filed by John O. Cummings & Co. and Yincent & Pitcher against Pool and *568others, alleging, that on the 12th day of January, 1837, said complainants entered into an agreement with said Pool for the entry and purchase in copartnership of certain coal lands in Tuskaloosa County, Alabama. An agreement, signed by them respectively, is appended to the bill, by which it appears, that on the date above, the parties agreed to form a company for the purpose of entering or purchasing coal lands, and for the purpose of mining coal, should they thereafter determine to mine; the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McCaskle v. AmarineSupreme Court of Alabama · 1847
3Cited by2 opinions
- Smith v. MurphySupreme Court of Alabama · 1877
- Marsh v. MarshSupreme Court of Alabama · 1869