Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

113 Ala. 587

Moore v. Campbell

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1896

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1896-11-15

Bill in Equity to enforce Parol Trust in Property Devised by Will. Appeal from the Chancery Court of Madison. The bill in this case was filed by the appéllant, Wm. R,. Moore, as the administrator of Ella M. Donegan, deceased, against Archibald Campbell, individually, andas the executor of the last will of Mary P.Rice, deceased. The facts of the case, with the exception of an amendment to the bill, are substantially the same as shown on the former appeal — 102 Ala. 445.

Relies on Moore v. Campbell · R. Bishop's Heirs v. Adm'r & Heirs of S. Bishop · Barrell v. Hanrick

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1896-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently February 1968

4 state decisions

2018961900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

COLEMAN, J.

¶1When this case was here on former appeal, (102 Ala. 445), we discussed at length the question of engrafting a parol trust upon a devise or bequest, after the probate of the will. In the opinion we used the following language : “The principle that a parol trust may be engrafted upon a devise or bequest after the probate of a will was declared in Bishop v. Bishop, 13 Ala. 475, and followed in Barrell v. Hanrick, 42 Ala. 60. We do' not feel at liberty to depart from the rule declared in these decisions, inasmuch as the statute of wills was re-enacted in the same language, after the rendition of these decisions ; and it is not necessary to a decision of the present case. ’ ’

¶2The bill, as then framed, justified the conclusion, that the trust set up pertained to realty. We held that this was prohibited by statute — section 1845 of the Code of 1886 — citing many authorities. After the remandment of the cause, the bill was amended, so as to charge that the trust related only to personalty. We are constrained by our former ruling following, the cases in 13 Ala. and 42 Ala. supra, to hold that such a trust is not obnoxious either to the statute of frauds or the statute of wills, and may be enforced. The remedy is with the legislature.

¶3Reversed and remanded.

Brickbll, C. J., not sitting.-
/113/ala/587 · .json · Public domain