Dobbs v. Dobbs

Decision Date14 June 1928
Citation143 S.E. 702
PartiesDOBBS . v. DOBBS.
CourtVirginia Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Buckingham County.

Suit by Alonza Dobbs against Harry A. Dobbs. Decree for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Hubard & Boatwright, of Buckingham for appellant.

G. M. Rogers, of Buckingham, and Aubrey E. Strode, of Lynchburg, for appellee.

WEST, J. On October 3, 1914, Alonza Dobbs conveyed to John B. Boatwright his farm in Buckingham county, Va., containing 143 acres. The deed, on its face, was an absolute conveyance, but was intended as a mortgage to secure the payment of a fee of $200 to John B. Boatwright, his attorney, and indemnify him against loss as surety on his bail bond. Dobbs was tried, in November, 1914, under three indictments charging violations of the Prohibition Law, convicted, and sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and costs in each case.

On November 6, 1914, John B. Boatwright and wife and Annie Dobbs, wife of Alonza Dobbs, conveyed the 143-acre tract of land to M. L. Layne, who paid off the debt due Boatwright. This deed was likewise absolute on its face, but was intended as a mortgage to secure the payment of the amount which Layne had advanced to settle with Boatwright. Layne held the legal title to the land until 1923. On October 19, 1923, 11. L. Layne and Mary L. Layne, his wife, conveyed the 143-acre tract to Harry A. Dobbs, in consideration of $150 and other valuable considerations, not described in the deed. The deed is also absolute on its face, but appellant contends it was intended as a mortgage to secure the payment of the amount paid to Layne by Harry A. Dobbs, while Harry A. Dobbs claims he is a purchaser for value and without notice and has an absolute fee-simple title to the property.

Harry A. Dobbs moved upon and took complete charge of the premises, and when Alonza Dobbs, his father, completed his term in jail, he returned to the farm and resided with his son. While Alonza was serving his sentence in jail, Harry A. Dobbs sold 19 acres of the farm, without the knowledge or consent of his father, to Ralfe Rush for $239, more than twice the amount which, according to the testimony of some of the witnesses, he paid for the entire farm. In addition, Harry A. Dobbs cut and sold from the farm several hundred dollars worth of timber.

In 1925, Harry refused, upon request, to deed the land back to his father, and in March, 1926, the father, Alonza Dobbs, filed his bill in the instant case setting forth the several conveyances of the land as hereinabove stated, and alleging that the land was deeded to the son by Layne and wife, with the express understanding that it would be deeded back to the father as soon as the balance of the debt due thereon was paid; that the son, Harry A. Dobbs, had refused to deed the land back to his father; and praying for a decree compelling the son to convey the land to the complainant and account for the rents and profits thereof, and enjoining the defendant from selling or disposing of the land or the timber thereon.

The defendant demurred to and answered the bill. In his answer he alleges that—

He "holds the said land under a deed from said Layne as a purchaser for value and without notice, being the owner of said land in fee simple without any right, equity or title therein belonging to the said complainant, who conveyed away his said land more than ten years ago and never asserted any claim thereto against your respondent until complainant quarreled with respondent's wife recently, until which time complainant always recognized the completeness of the title of respondent to the said land under the deed from Layne."

On May 12, 1926, a decree was entered enjoining and restraining Harry A. Dobbs from cutting or removing any timber from the land until the last of the October term of the court. 1 On October 19, 1926, the case being fully heard upon the pleadings and the evidence, a decree was entered adjudging that "the land involved in this suit, conveyed to Harry A. Dobbs by deed from M. L. Layne and wife, bearing date on October 19, 1923, is not held in trust by the defendant for the complainant, Alonza Dobbs, " dissolving the injunction and dismissing the bill, and striking the case from the docket. To that decree this appeal was allowed.

Neither John B. Boatwright nor M. L. Layne ever claimed a fee-simple title to the land in question. Each of them agreed that the deed under which he held was a mortgagegiven to secure the debt due him by Alonza Dobbs.

The entire controversy revolves around the deed of October 19, 1923, from M. L. Layne and wife to Harry A. Dobbs.

The pleadings put the parties at issue, and they went to trial upon one question: Was Harry A. Dobbs a bona fide purchaser for value and without notice of the plaintiff's rights, and the owner of the land in fee simple?

While the defendant (appellee) alleges in his answer that he is a bona fide purchaser for value and without notice, he introduced evidence by which he endeavored to claim the land as a gift from his father.

The parties must win or lose upon the case made in the pleadings. The question of the land being a gift from the father to the son not being involved in the pleadings, all evidence tending to show such gift is irrelevant and immaterial and will not be considered here.

A court of equity has no authority to decree upon a case not made by the pleadings. Fleenor v. Hensley, 121 Va. 374, 93 S. E. 582.

It clearly appears from the evidence that Harry A. Dobbs had full knowledge that the deed under which Layne held title, and the deed from Layne and wife to him, while absolute in form, were intended as mortgages to secure the payment of certain debts due to the grantees therein named, respectively. He actually paid the debt due...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Von Schleinitz v. North Hotel Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 14, 1929
    ...v. Dearmont, 229 S.W. 816; Bank v. Romine, 136 S.W. 21; Louisville & N. Railway Co. v. Whitaker, 300 S.W. 912, 222 Ky. 302; Dobbs v. Dobbs, 143 S.E. 702; Dittmerer Real Estate Co. v. Surety Co., 289 877; Sturtevant Co. v. Mfg. Co., 315 Mo. 1025, 288 S.W. 59. (4) Appellant recognized the val......
  • Von Schleinitz v. North Hotel Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 14, 1929
    ...v. Dearmont, 229 S.W. 816; Bank v. Romine, 136 S.W. 21; Louisville & N. Railway Co. v. Whitaker, 300 S.W. 912, 222 Ky. 302; Dobbs v. Dobbs, 143 S.E. 702; Dittmerer Real Estate Co. v. Surety Co., 289 S.W. 877; Sturtevant Co. v. Mfg. Co., 315 Mo. 1025, 288 S.W. 59. (4) Appellant recognized th......
  • Lewis v. Bowman
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • January 24, 1942
    ... ... 1, 29 P.2d 657; Crozier v. Soquel, 101 ... Cal.App. 402, 281 P. 698; Webb v. Vercoe, 201 Cal ... 754, 258 P. 1099, 54 A.L.R. 1200; Dobbs v. Dobbs, ... 150 Va. 386, 143 S.E. 702; Otts v. Avery, 234 Ala ... 122, 173 So. 844 ...          Ordinarily, ... of course, where a ... ...
  • Fed. Reserve Bank Of v. State & City Bank &
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1928
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT