Buford v. Shannon

• Decision Date: 26 November 1891
• Citation: 95 Ala. 205,10 So. 263
• Parties: BUFORD ET AL. v. SHANNON ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

10 So. 263

95 Ala. 205

BUFORD ET AL. v. SHANNON ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 26, 1891

Appeal from circuit court, Blount county; JOHN B. TALLY, Judge.

Ejectment by Buford, McLester & Co. against M. L. Shannon and another. Verdict and judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

The court refused to give the following written charges requested by plaintiffs: (1) "If the jury believe from the evidence that Shannon owed the plaintiffs a sum of money before the 6th day of February, 1886, then the law casts upon the defendants the burden of proving the consideration of the conveyance from Shannon to Allred by clear and satisfactory proof; and if the jury further find from the evidence that Allred was the son-in-law of Shannon, then the law is that defendants must prove the component amounts aggregating the fair value of the land; and if they fail to prove the different amounts by items which, added together, will show the payment of the value of the property conveyed, then it is the duty of the jury to find for plaintiffs." (2) "The court charges you, gentlemen of the jury, that, if you believe the evidence in this case, you will find that Allred either knew or was in possession of the facts calculated to stimulate inquiry; and if you find the fact so to be, and that on the day the conveyance was made from Shannon to Allred that Allred paid Shannon $25.00 or $30.00 in money, then this would render the transaction fraudulent and void as to plaintiffs, and your verdict should be for plaintiffs." (3) "The law requires the defendants to show an indebtedness from Shannon to Allred equal to the fair valuation of the land conveyed by Shannon to Allred on February 6, 1886; and if defendants have failed to show by clear and satisfactory proof the different items of indebtedness from Shannon which, when added together, will aggregate the reasonable value of the land at the time it was conveyed by Shannon to Allred, then plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment for the land sued for; and, if you believe this evidence, you should so find by your verdict." (4) "The court charges you, gentlemen, that the loans of $150.00, $50.00, $35.00, $25.00, and $50.00 are the only payments by Allred to Shannon established by defendants by that measure of proof the law requires of defendants in this case, and this amount is insufficient to establish the bona fides of the deed from Shannon to Allred, and your verdict should therefore be for plaintiffs for the lands sued for." (5) "The defendants must prove the payment of the reasonable value of the lands conveyed by Shannon to Allred; and if the jury believe from the evidence that the payments of $150.00 at one time, $50.00 at another $35.00 at another, $25.00 at another, and $50.00 at another were all the payments made by Allred to Shannon, as established by clear proof, then the court charges you gentlemen, that said deed is fraudulent and void as against the plaintiffs, and your verdict should be for plaintiffs for the lands sued for." (6) "The burden of proof is upon the defendants to show, by clear and satisfactory evidence, that Shannon owed Allred on the 6th day of February, 1886, an amount equal to the reasonable and market value of the land conveyed, and also to show the different amounts due by Shannon to Allred aggregating the value of the land conveyed at that time; and, unless the jury believe the evidence shows this to their satisfaction, the defendants are not entitled to recover, and your verdict should be for the plaintiffs for the lands sued for." (7) "If the jury believe from the evidence that Allred got $60.00 or $100.00 worth of goods from Shannon on February 6, 1886, in addition to the land conveyed by deed of that date, then the duty devolved upon the defendants of showing, by clear and satisfactory evidence, the existence of an indebtedness from Shannon to Allred equal to the value of the goods and land so conveyed; and, unless the jury believe that evidence clearly establishes this amount of indebtedness, the verdict, under the law, should be for plaintiffs." (8) "If the jury believe the evidence of J. P. Green is the only evidence before them of the sale of both the land and goods, and if they further believe that both sales were made at the same time, and that $25.00 or $30.00 were paid, and if there is no other evidence of said sale, and said Green is uncontradicted and unimpeached, then they cannot disregard his testimony capriciously; and if they believe this testimony, in connection with the other evidence, then they should find that the deed from Shannon to Allred is void, and find a verdict for plaintiffs." (9) "If the jury believe from the evidence that Allred bought $60.00 or $100.00 worth of goods from Shannon on February 6, 1886, then the burden of proof is upon the defendants to show that Shannon owed Allred an amount equal to the value of the goods, in addition to the value of the land; and, unless this indebtedness is shown by clear and satisfactory proof, your verdict should be for plaintiffs." (10) "In this case the burden of proof is upon the defendants to show, by clear, satisfactory proof the value of the consideration passing from Allred to Shannon for the property conveyed by Shannon to Allred, and, in absence of such proof, to the satisfaction of the jury, they should find for the plaintiffs." (11) "The court charges you, gentlemen, that under the law of this case, and the evidence before you, if you believe the evidence, the deed from Shannon to Allred of date of February 6, 1886, is fraudulent and void as against the plaintiffs." (12) "The jury cannot indulge in any presumption of payment...