Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Ballow v. State

98 So. 921 (Ala. Crim. App. 1923)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Ballow v. State

1 Citing case

  1. Dohoney v. Womack

    19 S.W. 883 (Tex. Civ. App. 1892)   Cited 27 times
    In Dohoney v. Womack et al., 1 Tex. Civ. App. 354, 19 S.W. 883, 885, 20 S.W. 950, it is said by the Supreme Court: "Appellant's seventh assignment of error relates to the exclusion from the evidence of the deed from Archie Womack to J. W. Wooldridge, for 100 acres of the land in controversy, to be taken wherever the grantee might select * * * It was error to exclude the Wooldridge deed, because a deed for a given number of acres to be selected from a larger tract is not void for uncertainty."

    The grantee acquires such fractional interest in every acre of the larger tract. Wallace v. Miller, 52 Cal. 655; Lawrence v. Ballow, 37 Cal. 518; Schenk v. Evoy, 24 Cal. 104; Gibbs v. Swift, 12 Cush., 377, 378; Brown v. Bailey, 1 Metc., 254. In the last case cited, in which a one-fifth interest in a homestead tract of land was devised, to be taken where the devisee should choose, Chief Justice Shaw, delivering the opinion of the court, said: "These words do not constitute a condition precedent to the vesting of the estate, but a right or privilege superadded to the devise, to be exercised or not, at the will of the devisee, upon partition.