Case Title: Hooks v. Hooks

Citation: 63 So. 2d 348

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1953-02-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
63 So. 2d 348 (1953)
HOOKS
v.
HOOKS.
6 Div. 464.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
February 26, 1953.
Silberman & Silberman, Birmingham, for appellant.
Adams & Adams, Birmingham, for appellee.
MERRILL, Justice.
The appeal in this case is from a decree of the Circuit Court, in Equity, of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, in which the court overruled the demurrers as amended to the bill of complaint.
The facts are taken from the statement of the case in brief of appellant, as follows:
In J. A. Owens & Co. v. Blanks, 225 Ala. 566, 144 So. 35, 36, the Court said:
Also in the case of Albae v. Harbin, 249 Ala. 201, 30 So. 2d 459, 461, the Court stated as follows:
The bill in the instant case alleges that the appellee made the cash payment and the deferred payments; that the deed was made to her and to the appellant at the time the cash payment was made; that present at that time were the attorney for the grantor, the appellee, her husband and the appellant; that it was then and there understood that the appellee was the purchaser and was to be the sole owner of said property, and that no gift was intended to be made to the appellant of any part of the property or any interest therein, and that appellant did not claim to be the owner of any part of said property or any interest therein, and it was not intended at said time that the appellant was to be the owner of said property or any interest therein. The bill also stated that the appellant signed the note and mortgage to secure payment of the purchase price on said property as an accommodation to his mother, the appellee.
Appellant insists that there is a presumption of gift or advancement since the relationship of appellee to appellant is that of mother and son. The authorities agree that the presumption does arise in such relationships, but that this presumption may be overcome by proof and that the intention of the parties must control.
As stated above, the bill clearly alleges that no gift was intended and appellant received no interest in the property. The bill in this cause met the requirements prescribed in the decisions cited above. The fact that the bill has been held sufficient as against demurrer does not relieve the complainant of the burden that "the allegations and the proof must correspond; and the evidence must be full, clear, and *351 satisfactory", J. A. Owens & Co. v. Blanks, supra,or "the proof must be clear, full, satisfactory and convincing." Lehman v. Lewis, 62 Ala. 129.
The decree of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON and STAKELY, JJ., concur.