# Wilkinson v. Wilkinson

> Supreme Court of Alabama · November 15, 1900 · 129 Ala. 279

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6518933

## Case

- **Full name:** Wilkinson v. Wilkinson
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** November 15, 1900
- **Citations:** 129 Ala. 279
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Tyson
- **Judges:** Tyson
- **Cited by:** 20 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6518933

## Opinion text

TYSON, J.
The bill seeks to have certain conveyances declared void and cancelled. The material allegations of the bill upon •which this relief is predicated may be stated to be these: That during the year 1880, the complainant was taken violently ill and became insane, and has never subsequent to said date been compos men-tis or of sound mind; that in July, 1885, he executed to his son, H. /. Wilkinson, a deed to certain real estate while he was insane, and incapacitated and incapable of contracting; that H. Z. Wilkinson, in 1888, executed a mortgage to his co-respondents’ testator. It sufficiently appears that complainant was out of the possession of the lands.
There was a motion to dismiss the 'bill for want of equity and a demurrer to it on the ground that the complainant has adequate remedy at law.
The deed was absolutely void, not merely voidable, and therefore a nullity. Being void, no title passed by *282 it to I-I. Z. Wilkinson, and, of course, the -mortgage executed by him'conveyed none. —Daugherty v. Powe, 127 Ala. 577 , and authorities therein cited; Beach on Modern Law -of Contracts.
■Complainant being insane and his deed a nullity on that account, it is of no consequence that-it was procured by arts -and misrepresentations.
The deed being absolutely void at law, no necessity exists for invoking the exercise of the jurisdiction of a court of equity to have it declared void. As the law affords a plain and adequate remedy for a recovery of the possession of the lands, the bill is without equity .—Dan iel v. Stewart, 55 Ala. 278 ; Tyson v. Brown, 64 Ala. 244 ; Peeples v. Burns, 77 Ala. 290 ; Smith v. Cockrell, 66 Ala. 47 ; Arnett v. Bailey, 60 Ala. 435 ; Lehman v. Shook, 69 Ala. 496 ; Curry v. Peebles, 83 Ala. 225 ; Armstrong v. Connor, 86 Ala. 350 ; Williams v. Lawrence, 123 Ala. 588 ; Brown v. Hunter, 121 Ala. 210 , and cases -cited therein.
The decree of the chancery court will he reversed and a decree will he here rendered dismissing the bill.
Reversed and rendered.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6518933. Public record. Not legal advice.