Bardin v. Grace

• Decision Date: 21 April 1910
• Citation: 167 Ala. 453,52 So. 425
• Parties: BARDIN ET AL. v. GRACE ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

52 So. 425

167 Ala. 453

BARDIN ET AL. v. GRACE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 21, 1910

Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; William H. Thomas, Judge.

Action by Sandy Grace and others against George R. Bardin and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

L. A Sanderson, for appellants.

Hill Hill & Whiting, for appellees.

SIMPSON J.

The original bill in this case was filed by Sandy Grace, one of the appellants, against J. H. Shreve and George R. Bardin and afterwards amended by bringing in the other parties complainant and respondent. The bill seeks the cancellation of certain deeds as clouds on the title of the complainants and rests upon the allegations that the original complainant is an ignorant negro man; that about February 20, 1908, said Sandy Grace had several lots of land which he wished to sell, and was told by a negro--G. W. Smith--to go to said Shreve, who would purchase same; that he agreed with Shreve to sell the lots to him for $1,000, and Shreve was to prepare the papers; that the next day G. R. Bardin came to Sandy with the papers, stating that he and Shreve were in the same company; that the deed was signed by Sandy and his son, who had a half interest in the lots, with their wives, $100 was paid, and a note given for $900, which would be paid the following day, but, as that day was a legal holiday, Bardin put him off until the following Monday--February 24th--and that since that time it has been impossible to find Bardin; that Shreve denies receiving the deed; that complainant has since learned that when said deed was signed, no grantee was named therein, but subsequently the blank space was filled in with the name of C. T. Mallett, who had the deed recorded, and on February 28th said Mallett conveyed the lots to his wife for a recited consideration of $10, and on March 2d said Mallett and wife conveyed the property to the defendants W. W. Patrick and T. M. Beck.

The charge is that the entire transaction was a fraud practiced on complainant, in which all of the several purchasers conspired. Mallett claims that he gave $1,100 for the property and conveyed it to his wife, because $700 or $800 of the purchase money belonged to her, and that they sold it on March 2d for $750. It is evident that the entire transaction was a fraud, up to the time when Patrick and Beck purchased; but the evidence does not show that they participated in the fraud. They claim to be innocent purchasers.

...