Perez v. Still
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the CourtSayre, J.
The last will and testament of Marie A. Teel, disposing of her entire estate, was duly probated in Mobile county. After-wards appellants Joseph Perez and Cluis Hill propounded two instruments in writing as codicils to the will of testatrix — this, by authority of section 10611 of the Code. These two instruments were in the form of warranty deeds of conveyance and recited valuable consideration of $10 each. The deed to Hill recited also “other valuable consideration.” They were dated a little more than a year after the will which had been duly admitted to probate. Contestants, appellees in…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- O'Donnell v. RodigerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
- Phillips v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914
- Jones v. FortSupreme Court of Alabama · 1860
- Chandler v. JostSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893
- Thompson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1851
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Moore v. CookeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1956