Couch v. Couch

• Decision Date: 15 November 1906
• Citation: 42 So. 624,148 Ala. 332
• Parties: COUCH ET AL. v. COUCH ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

42 So. 624

148 Ala. 332

COUCH ET AL. v. COUCH ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 15, 1906

Appeal from Chancery Court, Marshall County; William H. Simpson Chancellor.

"To be officially reported."

Suit by F. M. Couch and others against Sheffield Couch and another. Judgment for complainants, and defendants appeal. Reversed.

This was a bill filed by Charles and Sheffield Couch against William Couch and others to quiet title to certain lands therein described. The defendants filed an answer and cross-bill, setting up the invalidity of the alleged deed from Thomas Couch to Charles and Sheffield Couch, alleging that the defendants, together with Charles and Sheffield Couch, each own an undivided interest by virtue of their relation to Thomas Couch, being heirs of the same, and by amendment to their cross-bill set up that the land cannot be equitably divided, and pray for a sale of the same. The original act prayed for an annulment of the deed from Thomas Couch to Charles and Sheffield Couch. The chancellor decreed a dismissal of the cross-bill, that the defendants had no right, title, or interest, and quieted the title of said land in the complainants, Charles and Sheffield Couch. The other facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.

Street v. Isbell, for appellants.

John A Lusk, for appellees.

WEAKLEY C.J.

Conceding that the evidence reasonably establishes that Thomas Couch executed a deed to the land in controversy to his sons Charles Couch and Sheffield Couch, the evidence of its delivery is rather unsatisfactory. The deed was not signed by the grantor's wife, nor recorded, nor is it produced. One of the alleged grantees claims he placed it in his father's trunk, and that after the latter's death the deed could not be found. The grantees did not take possession of the land; but it remained in the possession of the father being in cultivation by his tenant at the time of his death.

But we will not rest our conclusion upon a want of sufficient evidence to reasonably convince us that the deed was delivered, since there is another reason, arising out of the facts, for avoiding the transaction, even if a deed was executed and delivered by the father to the two sons. The confidential relation of parent and children existed between the parties, and the father was very old and feeble, both in mind and body. The sons resided with him, were young and vigorous, and one of them, shortly before the transaction in question, had induced the father without consideration to convey to him his homestead; the transaction failing of consummation on account of the refusal of the wife to join in the conveyance. The weaker party was the donor, and we are reasonably convinced, from all the facts and circumstances in evidence, that Charles Couch, one of the grantees, was the dominant spirit in the transaction. The consideration recited in the deed to the land was love and affection, and, although it is claimed the grantees agreed to reside with and care for the grantor during his life, there is no claim...