Legal Opinion

Perez v. Still

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided May 9, 1929No. 1 Div. 522PublishedCited by 1 opinion

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

  1. O'Donnell v. RodigerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
  2. Phillips v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914
  3. Jones v. FortSupreme Court of Alabama · 1860
  4. Chandler v. JostSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893
  5. Thompson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1851

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Moore v. CookeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1956

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API