Davis v. W.F. Vandiver & Co.
| Decision Date | 22 April 1909 |
| Citation | 49 So. 318,160 Ala. 454 |
| Parties | DAVIS ET AL. v. W. F. VANDIVER & CO. ET AL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 11, 1909.
Appeal from Chancery Court, Butler County; L. D. Gardner, Chancellor.
Creditors' bill by W. F. Vandiver & Co. and others against J. H. Davis and others to set aside conveyances. From a decree for complainants, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Smith, Smythe & Traweek, for appellants.
Powell, Hamilton & Lane, for appellees.
The complainants being existing creditors when the deed was made from Davis and wife to the Tuckers (parents of Mrs. Davis), the burden of proof was upon the grantees to show the bona fides of the transaction. Russell v. Davis, 133 Ala. 655, 31 So. 514, 91 Am. St. Rep. 56. In determining the bona fides of a transaction assailed as fraudulent, the fact that such transaction was had between parties nearly related is a circumstance which naturally calls for closer scrutiny than where the transaction is between strangers. Murphy v. Green, 128 Ala. 486, 30 So. 643; Gordon v. McIlwain, 82 Ala. 247, 2 So. 671. A careful examination of the evidence makes it questionable as to whether or not Mrs. Tucker possessed $250 which she claims to have paid for the land. On the other hand, if she did really pay $250 for the land, it was less than a third of its value, according to the weight of the evidence. Moreover, owing to the relationship of the parties, it is highly probable that the Tuckers knew of the failing condition of Davis when the deed was made to them.
The assignments of error are all jointly made by all of the appellants, and those that relate to conveyances in which the Tuckers are not parties or interested cannot be considered by this court. "It is a settled rule that assignments of error made jointly by all the defendants, as to matter prejudicial to some of them only, will be disregarded." Hillens v. Brinsfield, 113 Ala. 304, 21 So. 208; Kimbrell v. Rogers, 90 Ala. 339, 7 So. 241; Rudulph v. Brewer, 96 Ala. 189, 11 So. 314.
The decree of the chancery court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chavers v. Mayo
...90 Ala. 339, 7 So. 241; Lillich v. Moore, 112 Ala. 532, 20 So. 452; Hillens v. Brinsfield, 113 Ala. 304, 21 So. 208; Davis v. Vandiver, 160 Ala. 454, 49 So. 318; Adams v. Bibby, 194 Ala. 652, 69 So. 588; Temperance Hall Asso. v. Holmes, 195 Ala. 437, 70 So. 640. That is to say, since McGehe......
-
Gilley v. Denman
... ... Rogers, 90 Ala. 346, 7 So. 241; Beacham v. A.S.P ... Mfg. Co., 110 Ala. 555, 18 So. 314; Davis v ... Vandiver, 160 Ala. 454, 49 So. 318, and numerous other ... authorities. We are of the ... ...
-
Stacey v. Taliaferro, 3 Div. 957.
... ... 627, 72 So. 171; Chavers et al. v. Mayo, 202 Ala ... 128, 79 So. 594; Davis et al. v. W. F. Vandiver & ... Co., 160 Ala. 454, 49 So. 318; Barrett et al. v. Doe ex ... dem ... ...
-
Shortridge v. Southern Mineral Land Co.
..."Assignments of error made jointly by all the defendants as to matters prejudicial to some of them only will be disregarded." Davis et al. v. Vandiver & Co., supra; Gilley et al. v. Denman, The operation of the quoted rule is invoked by the appellee in this case; but the rights of the appel......