88 So. 829 | Ala. | 1921
The judgment was for a claimant (the wife) for property sought to be subjected by execution to the payment of a judgment against the husband and another.
Two assignments of error are not sufficiently insisted upon in argument of counsel to present anything for review. Georgia Cot. Co. v. Lee,
On the trial the husband, a defendant in the judgment on which execution issued and was levied on the property made the subject of the wife's claim under the statute, was sought to be asked by the plaintiff:
"Now is it not a fact that you are now trying to evade the payment of this judgment, and this is a contraption on your part to avoid payment of the debt?"
This question being defective in form, the sustaining of the objection thereto may be justified for this fault in form. Ex parte Payne Lumber Co.,
The general rule is that declarations, made by a third party in possession of property, "as to the history and source of such title," are inadmissible in the absence of the party against whom offered. Baker v. Drake,
The question at issue was Mrs. P. A. Buttram's title to the property claimed. The fact that a husband's services indirectly contributed to the acquisition of the property of the wife does not subject her property so acquired to the payment of his debts (Lister v. Vowell,
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELLAN and SOMERVILLE, JJ., concur.