Ex parte Fairfield-American Nat. Bank
| Decision Date | 18 June 1931 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 920. |
| Citation | 135 So. 447,223 Ala. 252 |
| Parties | EX PARTE FAIRFIELD-AMERICAN NAT. BANK. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Petition of the Fairfield-American National Bank for mandamus to Hon William M. Walker, as judge of the circuit court of Jefferson county.
Writ awarded.
A. Leo Oberdorfer, of Birmingham, for petitioner.
G. P Benton, of Fairfield, for respondent.
Petitioner Fairfield-American National Bank had filed its bill in equity against J. H. Murray, Melinda Murray, John C. Hill, and Ensley Dry Cleaners, Inc., to have set aside conveyances of real and personal property as having been made in fraud of complainant, a creditor, to vacate and annul a judgment rendered in the circuit court of Jefferson, "Bessemer Division" in favor of Hill and against Murray, on the ground that the same was collusive and fraudulent, and for discovery. The bill was filed at Birmingham, but, on the plea of the Murrays, was transferred to the Fifth Division of the circuit court of Jefferson, sitting at Bessemer. The present proceeding seeks to vacate the decree transferring the cause to the "Bessemer Division."
The bill in the original cause sought to set aside a conveyance of real property made by J. H. Murray to his wife Melinda recorded in the office of the judge of probate of Jefferson county, "Bessemer Division," and that the Ensley Dry Cleaners, Inc., be decreed to be a sham and a fraud designed "to create a cache wherein and whereby J. H Murray could cover up and conceal from complainant and others his dry cleaning business and plant, and delay his creditors in subjecting the same to his debts; that said John C. Hill and Melinda R. Murray had knowledge of the said intent of J. H. Murray; that said corporation is a pretense merely and void and that the property pretended to be owned by it is the property of J. H. Murray and that complainant has a lien thereon for its debt." The further averment is that Murray and his wife and Hill own all the pretended capital stock of the corporation, Hill and Murray owning one share each, the remaining eighteen shares being in the name of Murray's wife Melinda; that Murray had executed and delivered to Ensley Dry Cleaners, Inc., a bill of sale conveying all of said plant, machinery, and equipment, shown by an exhibit to consist of personal property only. The averment of the original bill in equity was that "Ensley Dry Cleaners, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Alabama with its original declaration of incorporation filed in the office of the judge of probate of Jefferson county, Alabama, and the said corporation has its office and principal place of business at Ensley, in Jefferson County, Alabama;" and that Murray, and his wife Melinda, and Hill are residents of Jefferson county, Ala.
The question presented for decision is whether petitioner's bill was properly removed to the branch of the court at Bessemer for hearing and decree in the court sitting there.
On the facts stated, if the Ensley Dry Cleaners, Inc., is suable at Birmingham, petitioner's bill was properly filed at Birmingham, notwithstanding its individual stockholders, who are also parties defendant in the cause in equity, all reside within the jurisdiction of the "Bessemer Division."
A bill in equity may be filed in any county in which a material de...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Morton
...by section 294, Title 7, Code, as interpreted by this Court. Wilder v. Crook, 250 Ala. 424, 34 So.2d 832; Ex parte Fairfield-American National Bank, 223 Ala. 252, 135 So. 447; Pucket v. Pucket, 174 Ala. 315, 56 So. 585; Harwell v. Lehman, Durr & Co., 72 Ala. 344. It is said in Waddell v. La......
-
American Auto. Ins. Co. v. English
...v. Crook, 250 Ala. 424, 34 So.2d 832; First Nat. Bank of Birmingham v. Johnson, 227 Ala. 40, 148 So. 745; Ex parte Fairfield-American National Bank, 223 Ala. 252, 135 So. 447; Lewis v. Elrod, 38 Ala. 17. In State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Sharpton, supra, [259 Ala. 386, 66 So.2d 917] this ......
-
Tri-State Corp. v. State ex rel. Gallion
...& Co. v. Brierfield Coal & Iron Co., 106 Ala. 615, 17 So. 618; Puckett v. Puckett, 174 Ala. 315, 56 So. 585; Ex parte Fairfield-American Nat. Bank, 223 Ala. 252, 135 So. 447.' The bill of complaint alleges that the Governor and the Director of the Department of Conservation are residents of......
-
Ex parte Walter Industries, Inc.
...in effect, as two counties for purposes of venue. See Ex parte Kemp, 232 Ala. 434, 168 So. 147 (1936); Ex parte Fairfield-American Nat'l Bank, 223 Ala. 252, 135 So. 447 (1931). If, under the general venue statutes, venue was appropriate in either division, then the plaintiff could elect to ......