¶1We find it difficult, if not impossible, to determine, either from the answer,' or the affidavit attached to it, what is intended to be stated on knowledge of the defendant, and Avhat ou information and belief. He is but an administrator, and the charges in the bill are not presumed to be within his personal knowledge. Such denials do not overturn positive averments, and the result is the decree of the chancellor must be affirmed.—Rembert v. Brown, 17 Ala. 667; Sheppey v. Davis, at the present term.
59 Ala. 558
Stallworth v. Lassiter
Decided December 15, 1877
Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1877-12-15
Heard before the Hori. Huexosco Atjstill. The bill of the complainant, Samuel O. Lassiter, shows that he was the son-in-law of William M. Stallworth, who ■died intestate at his home in Conecuh county in March, 1877. During the life of the decedent, the complainant executed to him two mortgages—one on or about the 15th day of May, 1875, upon the land therein described, and also upon his entire crop of corn and cotton produced on the land.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1893
1 state decisions
Relies on Rembert v. Brown
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1877-12-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →