Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

73 Ala. 171

Hood v. Powell

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1882

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1882-12-15

Heard before Hon. N. S. Graham: This was a bill in equity, filed on 15th, March, 1880, by Mary A. Powell, w’idow of Elijah Powell, deceased, and E. T. Powell, their son, who was a minor at the time of his father’s death, against S. B. Hood, to have vacated and canceled a deed of trust executed by the decedent on 30th December, 1872, purporting to convey his homestead to D. E. Turrentine, as trustee to secure a designated debt, which he then owed to -the ■defendant, on the…

Relies on Dooley v. Villalonga · Cahall v. Citizens Mutual Building Ass'n · Halso v. Seawright

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1882-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 1942

7 state decisions

201882189019001910192019301940decided

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 →

STONE, J.

¶1— “ A mortgage or other alienation of [the] homestead by the owner thereof, if a married man, shall not be'valid without the voluntary signature and assent of the wife to the-same.” — Cons, of 3875, Art. 10, § 2. This provision does not require that the wife shall unite in a conveyance of the title. She has none to convey. She must assent to the conveyance,, to be evidenced by her voluntary signature. The statute has provided the mode and form by which it shall be shown her signature'and assent were voluntarily given. "Without that evidence, the conveyance is a nullity. — Code of 1876, § 2822;. Cahall v. Cit. Mut. B. Assso. 61 Ala. 232; Long v. Mostyn, 65 Ala. 543; March v. England, 65 Ala. 275. And the acknowledgment and certificate may be made after the execution of the deed, and they become valid and binding from that time forth. Dooley v. Villalonga, 61 Ala. 129; March v. England, 65 Ala. 275.

¶2The certificate of acknowledgment, made by the sworn clerk of the judge of probate, acting for and in the name of his principal, was sufficient. Halso v. Seawright, 65 Ala. 431.

¶3We need not consider the other questions discussed.

¶4. The decree of the chancellor is reversed, and a decree here-rendered dismissing the bill of complainants, at their cost in the-court below and in this court.

¶5Reversed and rendered.

/73/ala/171 · .json · Public domain