Cragford Bank v. Cummings
| Decision Date | 12 May 1927 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 725 |
| Citation | 113 So. 243,216 Ala. 377 |
| Parties | CRAGFORD BANK v. CUMMINGS. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 15, 1927
Appeal from Circuit Court, Clay County; E.S. Lyman, Judge.
Claim suit between the Cragford Bank, plaintiff, and Mrs. M.E Cummings, claimant. From a judgment for claimant, plaintiff appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Code 1923, § 7326. Affirmed.
Walter S. Smith, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Pruet & Glass, of Ashland, for appellee.
Plaintiff caused a waiver execution to be levied upon a crib of corn. The wife of the defendant in execution interposed her claim for trial of the right of property. The court, sitting as a jury, rendered judgment for the claimant. Plaintiff appeals.
The plaintiff produced evidence that the corn in part was grown on land rented by the defendant and cultivated by himself and family in 1924.
Claimant's evidence tended to show that about June 12th, while the crop was in cultivation, plaintiff took the teams and corn of the defendant under mortgage; that thereupon he entered into a written agreement with his wife, assigning to her the growing crop with other effects in consideration of love and affection and in further consideration that she would support and maintain the family; that thereupon she arranged for other teams, and with the labor of herself and children finished cultivation, gathered the crop, paid the rents, gave part of the crop for assistance in making it, and the remainder was in her possession, being used as family supplies when levied upon.
Her evidence further tended to show that, after the husband turned over the unfinished crop to the wife, he engaged in outside work, giving assistance in the crop a few days.
The plaintiff bank had brought suit upon the demand just prior to this contract between husband and wife, later obtained judgment thereon, and had it registered in the office of the judge of probate shortly before execution issued.
The inference is clear from the whole evidence that the husband finding himself stripped of the equipment with which to make the crop, entered into the arrangement with his wife, with a view to have his family go on and finish the crop and hold it for their use, rather than go in payment of plaintiff's debt.
The inquiry is, Was this transaction without consideration fraudulent, and void as against the existing creditor of the husband, and was the title to the corn in the crib in the husband and subject to execution?
Plaintiff's view is that the husband, the head of the family, had the duty to support the family, that the services of his wife and children inured to him; that an agreement between husband and wife by which the latter undertakes to support the family is void; and that therefore the attempt to pass the crop to the wife was voluntary, infected with fraudulent intent, and void as against the plaintiff.
The question must be determined as of the date of the agreement in June.
It is not sufficiently shown that, by agreement with Mr. Farrow, the landlord, the husband was released as tenant and the wife substituted as such. This was immaterial. If the husband passed a valid title to his interest in the crop and arranged to have its cultivation finished and the rent paid, the wife's position, as between landlord and tenant, was that of a subtenant.
The growing crop was not subject to levy and sale under execution. Code of 1923, § 7807; Gaston v. Marengo Improvement Co., 139 Ala. 467, 36 So. 738.
The wife has full legal capacity to contract as if she were sole, except as otherwise provided by law. Code, § 8267.
She has the same power to contract with her husband, subject to the rules governing contracts between persons in confidential relations. Code, § 8272. These rules were already defined and merely declared by statute to be applicable to contracts between husband and wife.
As between them, it shields the wife from imposition or advantage taken by the husband by reason of the influence growing out of the relation. As to third persons it invites scrutiny into the bona fides of transactions where the husband and wife have a common interest, opposed to that of such third persons, but does not avoid them if good faith and a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ritchie v. White
...to the family supportand care. Whether rendered in or out of the house, no implied obligation to pay arises." Cragford Bank v. Cummings, 216 Ala. 377, 113 So. 243, 244. In Foxworthy v. Adams, 136 Ky. 403, 124 S.W. 381, 27 L.R.A., N.S, 308, Ann.Cas. 1912A, 327, it was held that notwithstandi......
-
Ritchie v. White
... ... property as if they were unmarried. G.S. s 52-10 et seq.; ... Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Turner, 202 N.C. 162, 162 ... S.E. 221. Domestic obligations incident to the ... Whether rendered in or out of the house, no implied ... obligation to pay arises. ' Cragford Bank v ... Cummings, 216 Ala. 377, 113 So. 243, 244 ... In ... Foxworthy v ... ...
-
Barnett v. Barnett
...advantage in business transactions taken by the husband by reason of influence growing out of the marriage relation. Cragford Bank v. Cummings, 216 Ala. 377, 113 So. 243. This construction is placed upon this statute because under the common law the husband is presumed to be the dominant of......
-
Ex parte Alabama Textile Products Corp.
... ... relative rights of the husband and wife are well expressed in ... our case of Cragford Bank v. Cummings, 216 Ala. 377, ... 113 So. 243, 244, as follows: ... "Contrary ... to ... ...