Brooks v. Lowenstein

• Decision Date: 30 January 1900
• Citation: 124 Ala. 158,27 So. 520
• Parties: BROOKS ET AL. v. LOWENSTEIN ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

27 So. 520

124 Ala. 158

BROOKS ET AL. v. LOWENSTEIN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 30, 1900

Appeal from chancery court, Geneva county; Jere N. Williams Chancellor.

Bill by Lowenstein Bros. and other against H. C. Brooks and another. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill, defendants appeal. Reversed.

The bill in this case was filed by the appellees against H Brooks and Ann M. Brooks. The bill alleges that on certain dates the complainants were creditors of Brooks & Co., a partnership composed of H. C. Brooks and W. D. Kirby; that for several years past H. C. Brooks & Co. have been engaged in the mercantile business at Geneva, Ala., holding themselves out to the world as a firm of means, integrity and honesty, thereby gaining a credit to which, as subsequently appeared, they were not entitled; that during the time they were so engaged in business H. C. Brooks (on November 27, 1894) purchased the lot in controversy; that soon thereafter he began and completed a brick storehouse on said lot for the purpose of carrying on said mercantile business; that on or about May 25th they ceased to do business, their stock of goods having been attached at the instance of Preston & Stauffer. The bill further avers that on May 4, 1897, the said H. C. Brooks sold and conveyed to Ann M. Brooks the said lot and storehouse; and the bill has attached to it a copy of the deed. The bill avers that no part of the money of Ann M. Brooks was used in the purchase of said lot or in the construction of said store; that it was purchased and the store constructed solely with the means of H. C. Brooks and H. C. Brooks & Co.; that both at the time of such conveyance from Brooks to his wife, and at the time of the purchase of said lot and the construction of said store the said Ann M. Brooks was an old woman, wholly without any separate estate, either in property or money, and was insolvent; that at the time of said conveyance the said H. C Brooks and H. C. Brooks & Co. were insolvent and in a failing condition, and that said conveyance was made in anticipation of such failure, which did occur on May 25, 1897, with the intent on the part of H. C. Brooks to hinder, delay, and defraud his creditors and those of H. C. Brooks & Co., and with the special intent on his part to hinder, delay, and defraud complainants in the collection of their debts; that said conveyance is absolutely without consideration, and that the consideration expressed in it, and the recitals as to the condition under and the purpose for which it was made, was simulated and false, devised only for the purpose of hindering, delaying, and defrauding the creditors of H. C Brooks and of H. C. Brooks & Co. in the collection of their just debts and demands; that at the time of said conveyance H. C. Brooks was liable individually and as a member of the firm of H. C. Brooks & Co., and owed $2,000 or more, and that said storehouse and lot, which are not worth exceeding $1,500, were substantially all the property owned by him capable of being subjected to the payment of his debts; that the remainder of his visible property consisted of goods, wares, and merchandise of the firm of H. C. Brooks & Co., the nominal value of which was about $1,200 or $1,300, but in truth their actual value was not more than $500 or $600; that H. C. Brooks since the levy of said attachment filed his claim of exemption to the goods, asserting that they belong to him individually; that the visible property of said Brooks is 120 acres of land in Covington county, Ala., which is his homestead; that he owns some few cattle, mules, horses, sheep, etc., all of which are much less in value than $1,000; that, if said conveyance was intended for the purpose of paying the alleged consideration of $2,500, then complainants aver that at the time H. C. Brooks...