¶1dissenting, held that the better construction of the will would be, that Mrs. Rowan took a life-estate, with remainder to her children, vested as to the child in being, and opening to let in after-born children; and, in support of this view, he cited Hannan v. Osborne, 4 Paige’s Ch. 336 ; Crawford v. Trotter, 4 Madd. 361 ; Chesnut v. Meares, 3 Jones’ Eq. (N. C.) 416 ; Churchill v. Churchill, 2 Metc. 466; Can v. Eslett, 16 B. Monr. 313 ; Vaughn v. Marquis of Headfort, 10 Sim. 639 ; Williams v. McConico, 36 Ala. 26.
39 Ala. 24
Echols v. Jordan
Decided January 15, 1863
Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1863-01-15
Heard before the Hon. John Foster. The bill in this case was filed, on tbe 21st January, 1857, by Frances B. Rowan, an infant, suing by her next friend, against her father, Alfred A. Rowan, and William Eebols ; and on the marriage of the complainant pending the suit, her husband, Thomas Jordan, was made a party complainant with her.
Relies on Williams v. McConico
Cited in Black's (1910)’s definition of “Children”
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1863-01-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 1925
5 state decisions
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 →