Crump v. Crump
| Decision Date | 14 April 1949 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 832. |
| Citation | 40 So.2d 94,252 Ala. 164 |
| Parties | CRUMP v. CRUMP et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Fite and Fite, of Hamilton, Young & Young, of Vernon, and Arthur Fite and Arthur Fite, Jr., both of Jasper, for appellant.
R G. Redden, of Vernon, and Chas. R. Wiggins, of Jasper, for appellees.
John Howard Crump, seventy-eight years of age, on the eve or day of his second marriage to a widow of his choice, was persuaded by his children, the appellees here, to convey his real estate to them, reserving to himself 'the timber and mineral rights and the right of occupancy of said property during the balance of [his] natural life.' The consideration was $5 and love and affection and after the execution of the deeds he relented of his purpose and action and sought to repossess said deeds, but they had already been recorded, so a few days later, and after his marriage, he filed the instant suit. From an adverse decree he has appealed to this court.
In view of certain facts adduced and some argument pertaining thereto, it is deemed proper to first state what this case is not. It is not one where the grantor seeks a cancellation of deeds for fraud in their procurement, where different rules control, 7 Alabama Digest, Deeds, k211[3] nor one where the wife seeks in equity to have set aside an ante-nuptial transfer, in contemplation of marriage, of her husband's property as in fraud of her marital rights, as considered in such authorities as Kelly v. McGrath, 70 Ala. 75, 45 Am.Rep. 75; Anderson v. Lewter, 232 Ala. 375, 168 So. 171, and cases cited; and 41 C.J.S. Husband and Wife, § 20(b), page 419.
This suit is aimed strictly at cancelling the delivered deeds on the ground of undue influence allegedly exerted by the children to procure their execution and to succeed it must be clear that the influence was so coercive as to destroy the grantor's free agency so that the act could not be resisted, as contradistinguished from influence of affection, or attachment, or the desire to gratify their wishes. Leeper Ex'r etc. v. Taylor, 47 Ala. 221, 222.
The rule is conceded that a donation from parent to child will not of itself raise a presumption of undue influence, since presumably the parent is the dominant party, but when it is shown that the natural order had been reversed and the child the donee, had become and was the dominating personality and the parent subservient to the will of the child, then the presumption is reversed and it is incumbent upon the child to establish the fairness of the gift. Gibbons v. Gibbons, 205 Ala. 636, 88 So. 833; Grubbs v. Hawkins, 208 Ala. 349, 94 So. 484; Worsham v. Johnson, 231 Ala. 265, 164 So. 381; Kahalley v. Kahalley, 248 Ala. 624, 28 So.2d 792(10). And the argument is advanced for a reversal of the decree of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fortune v. Boutwell, 4 Div. 8
...v. Austin, 180 Ala. 240, 60 So. 879; Frederick v. Hartley, 202 Ala. 43, 79 So. 381; Noel v. Noel, 229 Ala. 20, 155 So. 362; Crump v. Crimp, 252 Ala. 164, 40 So.2d 94; Whitten v. McFall, 122 Ala. 619, 26 So. 131. As stated, we are unable to find any evidence supporting the claim of undue inf......
-
Dillard v. Hovater, 8 Div. 544
...that in all transactions between them the parent is the dominant party. Wells v. Wells, 252 Ala. 390, 41 So.2d 564; Crump v. Crump et al., 252 Ala. 164, 40 So.2d 94; Shorter et al. v. Shorter, 250 Ala. 628, 35 So.2d 514; Tipton et al. v. Tipton, supra. Hence, the mere fact of a donation fro......
-
Meares v. Meares
...even if the evidence is partly presented by deposition as it was in the present case.' The rule is stated in the case of Crump v. Crump, 252 Ala. 164, 40 So.2d 94, 95, as follows: 'This conclusion of the trial court, who saw and heard the witnesses and who was better advantaged than we in a......
-
Pitts v. Hawkins, 6 Div. 832
...265, 164 So. 381; Tipton v. Tipton, 1947, 249 Ala. 537, 32 So.2d 32; Lee v. Menefield, 1947, 249 Ala. 407, 31 So.2d 581; Crump v. Crump, 1949, 252 Ala. 164, 40 So.2d 94; Decker v. Decker, 1950, 253 Ala. 345, 44 So.2d 435; Dillard v. Hovater, 1950, 254 Ala. 616, 49 So.2d 151; 3 Pomeroy, Eq. ......