Blewett v. Stallworth

• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: FOSTER, Justice.
• Citation: Blewett v. Stallworth, 248 Ala. 242, 27 So.2d 206 (Ala. 1946)
• Decision Date: 02 August 1946
• Docket Number: 1 Div. 247.
• Parties: BLEWETT et al. v. STALLWORTH.

27 So.2d 206

248 Ala. 242

BLEWETT et al. v. STALLWORTH.

1 Div. 247.

Supreme Court of Alabama

August 2, 1946

Gaillard & Gaillard and Wm. G. Caffey, all of Mobile, for appellants.

Smith Hand & Arendall, of Mobile, for respondent Hill.

Vickers Leigh & Thornton, of Mobile, for appellees.

FOSTER Justice.

The contention made on this appeal is laches sufficient to deny relief to complainant in a statutory suit in personam to quiet the title to land as between the parties in the cause. Section 1109, Title 7, Code. The court denied the claim of laches and granted relief, and in doing so we think there was no error.

The complainant for a recited consideration of $1,000 acquired the land by statutory warranty deed from the heirs of William C. Thompson who had been a resident of Chicago until his death. The deed was dated December 29, 1944. The respondents claim under a quitclaim deed reciting a consideration of $50 from William C. Thompson of New York, dated June 13, 1944, to Dr. Means Blewett and W. M. Wright. Blewett and Wright by instrument dated July 6, 1944, made a lease to George P. Hill for oil, gas and other minerals, for a consideration of $5080 paid them. And by deed dated July 20 1944, Blewett and Wright conveyed to George P. Hill a fourth interest in the minerals under said property for $1,016 paid them. George P. Hill was granted relief against Blewett and Wright on a cross-bill to the extent of the sums so paid. No contentior is here made that there was error in so doing, if complainant is entitled to relief such as was granted by the trial court. Another deed to Audrey R. Malone was made by Blewett and Wright for a consideration of $1,000 conveying a fourth interest in the minerals in and under said land, dated September 29, 1944, as to which no separate question is involved on this appeal.

The factual issue was whether the Chicago William C. Thompson or the New York William C. Thompson was the grantee in a deed to the land conveying it to William C. Thompson, executed by Farmers Loan and Trust Company of New York (as trustee under a deed of trust from the Mobile and Ohio Railroad Company) acting by Peoples Bank of Mobile and Jack F. Ross, as attorneys in fact. The deed was dated May 18, 1923. Previously there was a contract of sale to him dated January 18, 1914. The deed was not recorded until January 9, 1945. The public became interested in the land on account of an oil activity in lands in that section.

The Chicago Thompson's wife was named Marjory. The New York Thompson's wife was named Ada. The timber on the land had been cut over, and no one had been in actual possession since then, and no tax assessment had been made for over twenty years. There is vague reference to a timber lease to one Skinner, who has been dead for many years.

The first activity in respect to the land was that Blewett and Wright sought to purchase it and inquired at the railroad office and found that their records show that it had been sold to William C. Thompson. They remember a William C. Thompson who at one time lived at Citronelle, and whose wife Ada was reared and lived there. They found out from Mrs. Thompson's sister at Citronelle where the Thompsons lived in New York state, and forwarded a quitclaim deed in a letter to them offering $50 for this land. They executed the deed and collected the $50. At the trial Mrs. Ada Thompson testified that she knew her husband bought some lands around Citronelle, but did not know their description: that her husband was at this time in a mental institution at El Paso, Texas. She knew nothing of the deed that her husband received, nor from whom received, nor what he paid; and she does not have the deed to this land in her possession, and does not know where it is.

It does not appear that the grantees from Blewett and Wright have expended any money in developing the land in reliance on their title and claim, nor that Blewett and Wright have done so.

The complainant, Stallworth, testified that he purchased the land from the heirs of Chicago Thompson by deed dated December 29, 1944, and went into possession at once by having it surveyed and posted using one hundred and fifty signs on it. He bought it from Mrs. Majory Thompson and the only child of the Chicago Thompson. He located the contract of purchase by William C. Thompson from the Alabama Land and Development Company, acting under authority from the railroad company and Farmers Loan and Trust Company, dated January 18, 1914, and which is in evidence, and there found his address to be 4522 Greenwood Avenue, Chicago, and he then employed an attorney in Chicago to locate him. This resulted in the purchase by him from his heirs, as stated. Mrs. Marjory Thompson (widow), and Marjory Thompson Harris (daughter) both testified that Mr. Thompson was in Citronelle in 1922 or 1923, and he purchased some land near there, but do not remember details; that they found the original deed in a cash box in a storeroom in their home in Chicago. The deed dated May 18, 1923, conveying the land to William C. Thompson for a recited consideration of $1,016 paid was introduced, and is one the witness identified. There was attached to it a paid check for $209 payable to Alabama Land and Development Company on the Kenwood National Bank of Chicago, cleared through the Chicago Clearing House. The signatures to the check and to the deed were proven.

The fact that complainant purchased from the true owner of the land is made very clear and no serious contention is now otherwise made. But appellants claim that they acted in good faith in buying from the New York Thompsons, and that the Chicago Thompsons were guilty of laches so as to require the court to deny relief to complainant against these appellants. These appellants were out $50 for a quitclaim deed. They received from George P. Hill over $6,000, and from Malone $1,000. No expense has been made in developing or improving the property. If relief is granted, the loss to appellants will be the $50 since they are required in the decree to restore to Hill the money he paid them. There is no bill by Malone, and he made no answer.

The question is, should equity deny...