Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

75 Ala. 379

Snyder v. Glover

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1883

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1883-12-15

Tried before ILon. Wm. E. Clarke. This was a statutory real action in the nature of ejectment, by Mrs. Mary T. Glover, a married woman, the wife of Pearson J. Glover, against 'John II. Snyder ; and was commenced on 3rd October, 1882. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, from which the defendant prosecuted this appeal.

Relies on Williams v. Higgins · Castleman v. Jeffries · Prince v. Prince

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1883-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1928

5 state decisions

2018831890190019101920decided

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".

¶1Each claimant in this contention rests the right of recovery on the postulate, that the lands sued for were of the statutory separate estate of Mrs. Glover. Snyder, the appellant, claims under and through her. The defendant’s title is a deed of bargain and sale, absolute on its face, executed to him by Glover and wife in December, 1880, on a recited consideration of thirty-two hundred dollars paid. This deed was duly executed, and attested by two witnesses, with certificate of acknowledgment and registration in due form of law. There was no attempt to prove any fraud in the execution of the deed. This vested a legal title in Snyder, and is a complete answer to the action of ejectment, which can neither enforce nor consider equitable claims. — Code of 1876, § 2707.

¶2If any portion of the purchase-money was paid in the debt of the husband, the remedy is not ejectment for the land. A suit at law for the unpaid purchase-money could probably be maintained, and a bill in equity to enforce the lien would also probably lie.—Williams v. Bass, 57 Ala. 487; Shulmam v. Fitzpatrick, 62 Ala. 571; Boyleston v. Farrior, 64 Ala. 564; Simms v. Kelly, 70 Ala. 429; Morris v. Harvey, 4 Ala. 300; Williams v. Higgins, 69 Ala. 517. Prince v. Prince, 67 Ala. 565, was a suit in equity, and the conveyance only a deed of trust, which the wife had no power to make. That case is not opposed to the views expressed above.Garrett v. Lehman, 61 Ala. 391.

¶3We need scarcely add that so far as the present transaction was based on money actually paid, if such was the case, the plaintiff has no just ground of complaint. And Snyder having the legal title, by what, on its face, purports to be a valid sale and conveyance, we need not, and do not, decide whether or not he may retain it as payment fro tanto, or security, to the extent he may show a valid claim, otherwise unsatisfied, for such supplies as fall within section 2711 of the Code of 1876. That question we leave open.—Gastleman v. Jeffries, 60 Ala. 380.

¶4Many of the rulings of the circuit court are opposed to these views. We need not specify them.

¶5Eeversed and remanded.

/75/ala/379 · .json · Public domain