Baker v. Gate City Coffin Co.

Citation203 Ala. 6,81 So. 674
Decision Date24 April 1919
Docket Number5 Div. 720
PartiesBAKER et al. v. GATE CITY COFFIN CO. et al.
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

Appeal from Circuit Court, in Equity, Coosa County; S.L. Brewer Judge.

Bill by the Gate City Coffin Company and another against D.W. Baker and another. Decree for complainants, and respondents appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Riddle & Riddle, of Talladega, for appellants.

George A. Sorrell, of Alexander City, and Felix L. Smith, of Rockford, for appellees.

McCLELLAN J.

The complainants are the Gate City Coffin Company and the King Hardware Company; the respondents are D.W. Baker and the Farmers' & Merchants' Bank. The original bill was filed June 27, 1916. Its theory was, and yet remains in one aspect of the alternative introduced by amendment, to cancel a mortgage executed by D.W. Baker to the Farmers' &amp Merchants' Bank on January 10, 1916, because fraudulent and void under the provisions of Code, § 4293. On August 24 1916, the bill was amended with the view to having the said mortgage declared a general assignment in virtue of Code, § 4295. A single bill may now properly invoke relief under either alternative. Dozier v. Farrior, 187 Ala. 181, 188, 189, 65 So. 364. The court, in its decree, granted relief under the phase of the bill which sought cancellation of the mentioned mortgage, on the ground that it was void because it was made to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors within the provisions of section 4293.

The complainants became creditors of Baker during the early part of the year 1915, and on May 22, 1915, reduced their claims to judgments, on which executions were returned by the sheriff nulla bona. On October 19, 1915, Baker executed to Obe Riddle two notes and mortgages, to secure an aggregate sum of $4,500, maturing on January 1, 1916. The validity of these notes and mortgages to Riddle is not brought into question in this cause. When Baker executed the mentioned mortgage to the bank for $13,029.19, which, on its face covered all the personal property owned by Baker, as well as certain lands described therein, constituting all the land Baker owned, as the agreement of the solicitors recites, "except a homestead that was not subject to his debts." The amount expressed in the notes and mortgage to the bank was composed of $4,500, paid in cash by the bank to Riddle to effect the purchase (not payment and discharge) and assignment to it of the notes and mortgages Baker had given Riddle in October, 1915, and the pre-existing indebtedness, with interest, of Baker to the bank, to secure which the bank had Baker's notes and some collateral. It appears that the bank and Baker agreed, when this mortgage was executed, that it should serve as additional security to the bank for Baker's indebtedness to it and of the mortgages to Riddle, so assigned by Riddle to the bank for present value paid. Aside from the personal property the mortgage to the bank purported to cover, it described land not subject to the previous mortgages executed by Baker to Riddle. Since nothing was then paid to Baker by the bank for or on account of the Riddle mortgages, since there does not appear to have been any consideration moving from the bank to Baker upon which to rest the conveyance by Baker of the additional real property, and since the payment of the $4,500 to Riddle was absorbed as a consideration in effecting the assignment of the Riddle mortgages to the bank, the effort of Baker, the debtor of complainant and of the bank, to convey the additional realty to the bank was without effect; was a voluntary conveyance so far as his existing creditors were concerned. It is hardly necessary to remark that these considerations can be accorded no effect to impair or postpone the rights acquired by the bank through the assignment of the Riddle mortgages upon a present consideration paid. The agreement of the solicitors, upon which the cause was in part submitted, commits the complainants to a concession that the statements made in the answers filed by Baker and the bank, both originally and as amended, are true, with an exception without importance at this time. This concession forbids recourse to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • W.T. Rawleigh Co. v. Timmerman
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 16 Diciembre 1920
    ... ... 30; Burnwell Coal Co. v. Setzer, 203 Ala. 395, ... 83 So. 139; Baker v. Gate City Coffin Co., 203 Ala ... 6, 81 So. 674. It is pertinent to ... ...
  • Huckabee v. Stephens
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 27 Febrero 1940
    ... ... accordance with the statutes of this State. Baker v. Gate ... City Coffin Co., 203 Ala. 6-8, 81 So. 674 ... It ... ...
  • In re Hooton
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • 18 Abril 1985
    ...cited with approval in In re Southern Metals Products Corporation, 26 F.Supp. 666, 672 (N.D.Ala.1939). Cf. Baker v. Gate City Coffin Company, 203 Ala. 6, 81 So. 674 (1919). 7 Fed.R.Civ.P. 12. Rule 12(b) provides, in part, as follows: "if, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to di......
  • Lowery v. Green
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 1 Mayo 1919
    ... ... Smith ... v. Young, 190 Ala. 190; D.W. Baker et al. v. Gate City ... Coffin Co. (present term) 81 So. 674 ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT