Edmondson v. Jones

• Decision Date: 14 February 1920
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 986
• Citation: 85 So. 799,204 Ala. 133
• Parties: EDMONDSON et al. v. JONES.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

85 So. 799

204 Ala. 133

EDMONDSON et al. v. JONES.

7 Div. 986

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 14, 1920

Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; Hugh D. Merrill, Judge.

Bill by Jack Jones against W.J. Edmondson and Mrs. Lena Page, as administratrix of the estate of J.R. Castleberry. From a decree overruling demurrers to the bill, respondents appeal. Affirmed.

McClellan J., dissenting.

Knox Acker, Dixon & Sterne, E.H. Hanna, and Willett & Walker, all of Anniston, for appellants.

T.C Sensabaugh, of Anniston, and J.J. Mayfield, of Montgomery, for appellee.

BROWN J.

The bill in this case was filed on the 10th day of December, 1917, by Jack Jones against W.J. Edmondson and Mrs. Lena Page, as administratrix of the estate of J.R. Castleberry, deceased, and seeks relief against a proceeding in the probate court of Calhoun county, through which, as the bill avers, the respondent Edmondson and Castleberry deprived the complainant of all his property without notice to him or an opportunity to be heard, and without compensation or resulting benefit to him. The ground upon which he seeks relief is that the several orders and decrees of said court looking to the sale of his property were but the carrying out of a conspiracy and concoction of fraud between the said Edmondson and Castleberry to deprive the complainant of his property and acquire it for the said Edmondson, or Edmondson and Castleberry.

To the end of showing such fraud as will justify the interference of a court of equity, the bill avers that, although the complainant was not at the time a resident of Calhoun county, a proceeding was instituted in the probate court of said county on, to wit, November 30, 1913, to have complainant adjudged insane; "that he had no notice of the said proceeding for inquisition of lunacy against him in said court of probate; that he was not present in said court at any time during any of said proceedings, and was not at said time (November 30, 1903), a resident of Calhoun county, Ala., but was, and had been since the early part of July, 1903, a resident of the county of Mobile; *** that on the 30th day of June, 1904, at the time said J.R. Castleberry was appointed guardian of complainant by said court of probate, complainant was not a resident of Calhoun county, and was not an inmate of any hospital for the insane in Alabama;" and, further, "that on the 30th day of June, 1904, said J.R. Castleberry, now deceased, filed his petition in said court of probate setting forth that your complainant had been adjudged in said court of probate non compos mentis, and that he had property requiring the care of a guardian of the value of $250, and praying that he, said Castleberry, be appointed as such guardian; and on the same day (June 30, 1904), said J.R. Castleberry filed his bond in said court of probate in the sum of $500 as guardian of your complainant, and one of the sureties on said bond is the respondent W.J. Edmondson. And on the same day (June 30, 1904), the judge of said court of probate issued to said J.R. Castleberry letters of guardianship on the person, rights, and property of complainant;" that as such guardian there came into the hands of said Castleberry personal property belonging to the complainant of the value of $180 and real estate worth $3,000; that the annual rent of said real estate was $250; that thereafter the said Castleberry made application to the probate court for the sale of said property ostensibly for the payment of debts, and for the maintenance of complainant and his minor children; that said sale was ordered, and at the sale the respondent Edmondson became the purchaser of the land at and for the sum of $250; that the personal property was sold for $22.40, Edmondson and Castleberry becoming the purchasers of all such personal property, except a plow and crowbar sold to one Aderhold for 50 cents, and a scything cradle sold to one Wilkins for $1.10. It is also shown that immediately after said Castleberry procured a confirmation of the sale of said property he proceeded to make a final settlement of his guardianship. The bill further avers:

"Your complainant avers and charges that said J.R. Castleberry did not file said application to sell said lands us his guardian for the purpose of paying debts, and for the maintenance of your complainant and his children, as alleged in said application; no debts in fact existed except as herein stated, and the rents of said lands and said personal property was sufficient to pay said debts and to support complainant, had there been a desire or intention to provide for his maintenance; but said Castleberry, as guardian, fraudulently colluded with said W.J. Edmondson and fraudulently formed and entered into the conspiracy with him to procure the decree of said probate court to sell said lands for the purpose of enabling said Edmondson to purchase said lands at public outcry for the fictitious claim of a debt and for less than their value, as complainant avers was done. And said A.M. Morgan, as guardian ad litem, fraudulently failed to make any defense to said application to sell said lands, and failed to require proof of the existence of debts, offered no evidence on said hearing of said application, and failed to even be present and cross-examine the witnesses on behalf of said petitioning guardian, but left the whole proceedings for the sale of said lands to the management and control of counsel selected and employed by said petitioning guardian, J.R. Castleberry. And complainant avers that the said decree of said court of probate for the sale of said lands, and the sale thereof thereunder, was the result of said fraudulent collusion between said J.R. Castleberry, guardian, and said W.J. Edmondson, pretended creditor, as aforesaid, and of the said fraudulent conduct on [of] the said A.M. Morgan, guardian ad litem, in permitting said lands to be sold by making no defense to said application for sale, as could have been done in the ordinary and proper discharge of duty." (Italics supplied.)

"That a court of equity possesses jurisdiction to relieve against fraud in judicial proceedings is everywhere a universally recognized principle. The judgment or decree against which relief is invoked, however, must have been procured by fraud, either in its original rendition, or by a subsequent fraudulent alteration; and this fraud must, in a sense, be shown to be actual and positive. When this is clearly established by satisfactory proof, it is honorable to our system of equity jurisprudence that such infection of fraud is made to vitiate every transaction, and the solemn judgments of courts are no exception to the salutary rule." Cromelin v. McCauley et al., 67 Ala. 542; Evans v. Wilhite, 167 Ala. 587, 52 So. 845; Evans v. Wilhite, 176 Ala. 287, 58 So. 262; Curry v. Peebles, 83 Ala. 225, 3 So. 622; Mitchell v. Rice, 132 Ala. 126, 31 So. 498; Kerr on Fraud and Mistake, 352, 353; Galatian v. Erwin, Hopk. Ch. (N.Y.) 48.

The averments of the bill clearly bring this case within the principle that fraud, to be available as a predicate for relief against a judgment at law, must be fraud in the procurement of the judgment. The bill, in terms, avers that there was a concoction or conspiracy between the respondent Edmondson and Castleberry to fraudulently procure the sale of complainant's property to satisfy fictitious claims, as a means of depriving complainant of his property and procuring it for said Edmondson and Castleberry, and that this conspiracy and fraud was carried out through the probate court, resulting in a sale of the property to said Edmondson and Castleberry for about one-twelfth of its real value, without notice to the complainant, and at a time when complainant was incapacitated from protecting his own interest; the said Castleberry at the time acting in the fiduciary capacity of guardian, and posing as complainant's representative.

The bill further avers that Morgan, who was appointed by the court guardian ad litem to protect the interest of complainant in the proceeding, was a party to the fraud and in collusion with Edmondson and Castleberry, and avers, in terms:

"Said A.M. Morgan, as guardian ad litem, fraudulently failed to make any defense to said application to sell said lands, and failed to require proof of the existence of debts, offered no evidence on said hearing of said application, and failed even to be present and cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of said petitioning guardian, but left the whole proceeding for the sale of said lands to the management and control of counsel selected and employed by said petitioning guardian, J.R. Castleberry."

The statute then in force (Code 1896, § 2323) provides:

"On the filing of an application for the sale of property of the ward, other than debts and choses in action, whether for the payment of debts or maintenance of a person of unsound mind, or for the maintenance and education of a minor, or for reinvestment, the court must appoint a day for the hearing, not less than twenty nor more than thirty days thereafter, and must appoint a suitable and competent person, not of kin or counsel to the petitioner, as guardian ad litem to represent the ward, who must put in issue the facts stated in the application and require proof thereof."

This statute first appeared in the Code of 1896, and was not in force at the time of the decision of this court in the case of Daughtry v. Thweatt, 105 Ala. 615, 16 So. 920, 53 Am.St.Rep. 146, and what it said in that case with reference to the appointment of a guardian is not apt as an authority here; that case being decided before this statute became the law.

These averments, if true, and on demurrer they must be so treated not only show fraud offending the rights of the...