Chapman v. Chapman

• Decision Date: 04 November 1915
• Docket Number: 3 Div. 160
• Citation: 194 Ala. 518,70 So. 121
• Parties: CHAPMAN v. CHAPMAN et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

70 So. 121

194 Ala. 518

CHAPMAN v. CHAPMAN et al.

3 Div. 160

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 4, 1915

Appeal from Circuit Court, Autauga County; W.W. Pearson, Judge.

Action by Mary A. Chapman and others against C.W. Chapman. From judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Gibson & Booth and Mac A. Smith, all of Prattville, for appellant.

Eugene Ballard, of Prattville, for appellees.

McCLELLAN J.

In January, 1897, Mary A. Chapman and Martha L. Hearn exchanged with their nephew, the appellant, C.W. Chapman, 60 acres of land owned by them for 40 acres owned by the nephew. These ladies were then 71 and 66 years of age, respectively. The deed to C.W. Chapman conveyed a fee-simple title to the 60 acres; but the deed from C.W. Chapman to his aunts conveyed to them only a life estate in the 40 acres. The bill in this cause was filed February 20, 1913, by appellant's aunts to compel appellant's specific performance of a contract to convey to his aunts the fee-simple title to the 40 acres they agreed to take in exchange for the full title to their 60 acres; he having, as stated before, only conveyed to them a life estate in the 40 acres then owned by him. While the bill is inartfully drawn, it yet expressed the theory we have stated, and hence possessed equity. It appears from its averments that the contract was for a conveyance by him of the full title, and that the ladies consummated their part of the contract by executing a full conveyance of their land to the appellant. It also appears by necessary implication from the averments of the bill that the deed from appellant to his aunts, the passing a life estate only to the 40 acres, was delivered to them, thereby effecting to import the contemporaneous transfer of the possession of the land from the grantor to them. Code, § 3364; Bliss v Smith, 1 Ala. 273; Smith v. Gordon, 136 Ala. 495, 34 So. 838.

The possession of the land being with them, their asserted laches, their delay of 16 years, though wholly unexplained or unexcused, in filing the bill to enforce performance of the contract as alleged, could not avail the appellant, their grantor. Ogletree v. Rainer, 152 Ala. 467, 472, 44 So. 565; Harold v. Weaver, 72 Ala. 373; L. & N.R.B. Co. v. Philyaw, 94 Ala. 463, 10 So. 83. It does not appear from the averments of the bill that there was any such change in circumstances as would operate, if specific performance was had, to prejudice the appellant. The bill was therefore not subject to the objection, taken by the demurrer, that laches intervened to affect the right of the complainants to the remedy sought.

Mary A Chapman and Martha Hearn, original complainants, died before the submission of the cause. It appears from a written agreement of the solicitors filed with the transcript that the cause was revived in the name of F.M. Chapman individually and as the administrator of the estate of Mary A. Chapman, deceased. There is nothing to indicate any revival of the cause so far as Martha Hearn was concerned. The decree awards relief by directing the respondent (appellant) to convey the full estate...