Blanks v. Atkins

• Decision Date: 24 May 1928
• Docket Number: 5 Div. 997
• Parties: BLANKS v. ATKINS et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

117 So. 193

217 Ala. 596

BLANKS v. ATKINS et al.

5 Div. 997

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 24, 1928

Appeal from Circuit Court, Randolph County; S.L. Brewer, Judge.

Bill to establish a resulting trust in lands by Brady Steen Blanks against J.M. Atkins and another. From a decree sustaining a demurrer to the bill, complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Hooton & Moon, of Roanoke, for appellant.

R.E Jones, of Heflin, for appellees.

BOULDIN J.

The bill is filed to establish a resulting trust in lands. The appeal is from a decree sustaining demurrer to the bill. The bill sufficiently alleges the following:

About March 10, 1920, Brady Steen Blanks, the complainant, and her brother, Lathing Steen, jointly purchased 80 acres of land from the Marbury Lumber Company for $980, paying $80 cash $40 each. They were let into possession, and partitioned the property, each taking possession of one 40. No conveyance was executed at the time. Whether there was any written evidence of the transaction does not appear. Complainant and her brother at the time held a series of six notes, aggregating $1,000, given by J.M. Woodard for purchase money of lands recently sold to him. The lands sold were jointly owned by sister and brother by inheritance, and the notes were payable to them jointly.

It is averred the deferred payments due to the Marbury Lumber Company, aggregating $900, were to be paid as these annual payments of the Woodard notes were made; that the first Woodard note of $166.66, due November 1, 1920, was paid; that the Marbury Lumber Company surrendered the note as paid, and credited the proceeds on the debt due that company for the lands in suit. While there is no express averment that the Woodard notes had been delivered to the Marbury Lumber Company, this may be implied from the facts averred, in so far as it affects the equities of the case; this, under the rule that on demurrer the bill is construed most strongly against complainant.

It is further averred that at the instance of respondents, Atkins and Owens, complainant and her brother placed with them the Woodard notes as collateral or security for money to be advanced by them to pay the Marbury Lumber Company the purchase money due that company; that Atkins and Owens did advance such money, and a deed was executed, conveying the title to the lands to Lathing Steen, the brother, who thereupon mortgaged the lands to Atkins and Owens, which mortgage has been foreclosed. It is averred the Woodard notes have been fully paid, and that Atkins and Owens had knowledge at the time of taking their mortgage of complainant's interest in said lands.

Appellees conceive that the demurrer was properly sustained upon the ground that the bill shows the money of complainant accruing on the Woodard notes was not paid on the lands until after the deed was executed by the Marbury Lumber Company, and was paid on a debt incurred to Atkins and Owens for money advanced to pay the vendor. As supporting this view appellees cite the line of cases holding that a resulting trust must arise at the time of the conveyance, cannot arise from transactions after the deal is closed and the status of title fixed.

The argument misconceives the effect of this rule. It has no application where complainant was a joint purchaser in the first instance, and incurred the obligation to pay, and pursuant thereto her money is thereafter applied in payment of the purchase money. Bibb v. Hunter...