Frederick v. Hartley

• Citation: 79 So. 381,202 Ala. 43
• Decision Date: 20 June 1918
• Docket Number: 3 Div. 284
• Parties: FREDERICK v. HARTLEY et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

79 So. 381

202 Ala. 43

FREDERICK v. HARTLEY et al.

3 Div. 284

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 20, 1918

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Oscar S. Lewis, Judge.

Action by Emma P. Frederick against J.H. Hartley and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Hill Hill, Whiting & Stern, of Montgomery, for appellant.

Steiner Crum & Weil, of Montgomery, for appellees.

MAYFIELD J.

Appellant filed this her bill, to cancel a certain deed executed by her and her husband to appellees, on the ground that its execution was procured by fraudulent representations and by undue influence. The law of the case, as well as the equity of the bill and the sufficiency of the averments as to fraud was settled on a former appeal from rulings on demurrer to the bill. See report of that appeal 191 Ala. 175, 67 So. 983. After review of rulings on that appeal, the bill was several times amended; some of the amendments being unimportant on this appeal. Paragraph 10 1/2 was added by amendment to the bill, and a demurrer was sustained to the part of the amended bill which sought relief as for undue influence, as distinguished from fraud by way of false representations, and that ruling is now assigned as error. This paragraph was wholly insufficient to charge undue influence. The entire averment as to undue influence, as distinct from active fraud in the making of false representations and concealments, which were fully set forth in other parts of the bill, was as follows:

"That the said J.H. Hartley took unfair advantage of her needy condition, her yielding disposition, her confidence in and affection for him, and his position as administrator of the estate of Fanny Dearing, deceased, and did abuse her confidence in him, in that he did represent," etc.

No sufficient facts are alleged to support the conclusions of the pleader as to undue influence. The facts alleged in the amendment do show fraud by way of false representations and concealments, but not undue influence.

Bills must contain a clear and orderly statement of the facts without prolixity or repetition, and conclude with a prayer for appropriate relief. No combination or confederacy is necessary. The courts discountenance prolixity and false allegations. Code, § 3094. It is only necessary to allege facts, not evidence nor conclusions. Bills should be sustained on the facts alleged and not on those inferred. A general charge of fraud without facts is insufficient. Argumentative allegations and expressions of opinion in bills are objectionable. Bills are construed against the pleader, and facts not averred are deemed not to exist.

Material averments in a bill to rescind and annul a contract should be made directly and positively, and not left to be deduced by inference from other averments. Material facts should be affirmatively offered; they should aver the name of the person who is alleged to have acted as respondent's agent. The averments as to the material parts of bills should be so full and complete that the court could without evidence ascertain the complainant's rights, and his rights should be shown by unambiguous averments. Pinkston v. Boykin, 130 Ala. 486, 30 So. 398; Goldsby v. Goldsby, 67 Ala. 560; Reese v. McCurdy, 121 Ala. 425, 25 So. 918.

A bill in equity must contain allegations to show that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief which he seeks, and, if the bill fails to set forth every essential fact necessary to make out his title to maintain the bill, the defect will be fatal. A bill in equity should show with certainty and clearness that the plaintiff has a right that warrants protection, and the defendant must be distinctly informed of the nature of the case which he is called upon to defend. Overton v. Moseley, 135 Ala. 607, 33 So. 696; Cockrell v. Gurley, 26 Ala. 405. In a bill to rescind a contract because of undue influence, the facts constituting such influence must be averred, and not mere conclusions of law stated. Jackson v. Rowell, 87 Ala. 685, 6 So. 95, 4 L.R.A. 637. In order to constitute undue influence, there must be a destruction of the free agency. Lyons v. Campbell, 88 Ala. 462, 7 So. 250; Jackson v. Rowell, supra. There are no sufficient facts alleged in either the original or the amended bill to meet this requirement as to undue influence, though the allegations as to fraudulent representations and concealment are sufficient. The trial proceeded to final decree on bill, answer, and proof, resulting in the denial to complainant of all relief and the dismissal of her bill; and we are urged to review the correctness of the decree. The record is rather voluminous, much testimony being taken. It has been carefully considered, with the aid of candid and able briefs on behalf of both the appellant and the appellees. We are of the opinion that the chancellor reached the correct conclusion in all his rulings as to the demurrers, in his rulings on the testimony, and in his findings of facts; and that the decree appealed from should be affirmed.

It would serve no useful purpose to discuss fully each particular part of the evidence, or each particular ruling. We are convinced that complainant failed to prove the material averments of her bill, as to fraud on the part of appellees in procuring the execution by her of the deed which is sought to be canceled. While there is some proof--especially that of complainant--tending to prove the material averments, there is much to rebut that tendency, and even some of complainant's own testimony so tends; and the whole of the equity of the bill is entirely denied and disproved by the testimony of appellees and disinterested witnesses. There is one item of evidence--a letter written by one of appellees to complainant--which, standing alone, tends strongly to corroborate and establish complainant's theory as well as her evidence. This letter states that respondent had title to the land in question when and...