Glover v. Walker

• Decision Date: 26 July 1895
• Citation: 107 Ala. 540,18 So. 251
• Parties: GLOVER v. WALKER.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

18 So. 251

107 Ala. 540

GLOVER v. WALKER.

Supreme Court of Alabama

July 26, 1895

Appeal from chancery court, Barbour county; H. D. Clayton, Special Chancellor.

Bill by E. M. Glover, as administrator of the estate of Maisy C Crews, deceased, against David L. Walker to enforce a vendor's lien for the purchase money of certain lands. From an order of dismissal, complainant appeals. Affirmed.

The purpose of the bill is to enforce a vendor's lien for the purchase money of certain lands described in said bill, which had been conveyed by appellant's intestate to appellee D. L. Walker, on the 25th day of April, 1878, for the consideration of $1,200, for which appellee, Walker, gave her on the day of said conveyance, his promissory note, payable one day after date. The bill alleges that no part of said purchase money has ever been paid, and that the same, with interest thereon, is still unpaid; that Maisy C. Crews died intestate, some time in the year 1889, and that complainant E. M. Glover, was by the probate court of Barbour county Ala., appointed administrator of the estate of Maisy C. Crews on the 21st day of February, 1893. Complainant, E. M. Glover administrator, etc., then prays for process against respondent, D. L. Walker, and asks for a decree, upon the hearing of said cause, declaring that the note for said purchase money constitutes a lien upon said lands to the extent of $1,200 and interest, and that the amount due be ascertained, either by the chancellor, or by reference to the register, and that the lands be sold and the proceeds be applied to the payment of the amount found to be due, etc. On the 14th day of September, 1893, respondent, D. L. Walker filed in said chancery court his four several pleas in bar of the right of complainant to maintain this suit, which were in substance as follows: (1) That all the matters and rights of complainant in the present suit had been adjudicated and settled by a former suit in said chancery court, commenced on the 26th day of January, 1893, the same being numbered 2,100 on the docket of said court, wherein the present complainant was complainant and the present respondent was respondent, and involving the same transaction with reference to the same lands. That upon the argument and hearing of said cause, No. 2,100, upon its merits, the chancellor was of opinion that the complainant was not entitled to relief, and caused a decree to be entered dismissing said cause out of said court. A transcript of the record of said cause, No. 2,100, was made an exhibit to this plea, and leave was asked to introduce the same as evidence upon the trial of this cause, and this respondent is ready to verify, and is offered and relied upon by him as a bar to this suit. Wherefore he prays judgment of the court whether he ought to be compelled to make any further answer to said bill, or any part thereof. (2) This plea was substantially the same as the first, relying upon the allegations and decree in said cause, No. 2,100, as an estoppel of complainant from setting up and maintaining the present bill. (3) This plea sets up the statute of limitations of six years as a bar to complainant's right to maintain the present bill. (4) This plea sets up the statute of limitations of ten years as a bar to complainant's right to maintain this bill. On the trial of this cause, complainant admitted that he was complainant, and that respondent, D. L. Walker, was respondent in said cause, No. 2,100, and that the lands described in the original bill were the same as were described in said former bill of complaint. The original bill in said cause, No. 2,100, a certified transcript of the record of which was attached to pleas Nos. 1 and 2, in this cause, and introduced in evidence upon the trial of this cause, was filed on the 26th day of January, 1893, in the chancery court of Barbour county, Ala., by E. M. Glover, as the administrator of the estate of Maisy C. Crews, deceased, and against D. L. Walker et al., and sought to have the two deeds mentioned in the present bill, which were executed on said 25th day of April, 1878, canceled and annulled, and to have said D. L. Walker to surrender the originals of said deeds to the register of said chancery court for cancellation and destruction, and to divest the title of said lands out of said D. L. Walker, and vest the same in the heirs-at-law of said Maisy C. Crews, deceased, subject to the payment of debts against her. The allegations of said bill were that said deeds were executed by said Maisy C. Crews to said D. L. Walker for the purpose of hindering, delaying or defrauding creditors of the said Maisy C. Crews, and was done upon the advice of said D. L. Walker, who was a brother of said Maisy C. Crews, and who had and exercised great influence over her; that it was intended and understood between said Maisy C. Crews and said D. L. Walker, at the time of the execution of the note given by said D. L. Walker to said Maisy C. Crews, on the said 25th day of April, 1878, for the purchase money of said land, that said note was never to be paid, and that said deeds were simply to be used as a protection to said Maisy C. Crews against certain judgments then outstanding against her; that said note was never paid, and that said Maisy C. Crews continued to use, possess, and enjoy the said lands after the making of said deeds as she had done before that time, and so continued up to the time of her death in 1889; that after her death her heirs received the income of said lands, or a part thereof for about two years, when they left the locality of said lands and never made further demand for the same; that said D. L. Walker never filed said deeds for record until after the death of said Maisy C. Crews, nor did he make any claim to the title of said lands, other than such as was necessary to protect the said Maisy C. Crews from said judgment; that the said D. L. Walker took advantage of his relationship to the said Maisy C. Crews and induced her to make said deeds under a pretense of protecting her, and has only since her death set up any claim to said lands. To the last-mentioned bill, No. 2,100 on said chancery docket, respondent, D. L. Walker, demurred, and as grounds of demurrer assigned in substance the following: (1) That according to the allegations of the bill said parties were in pari delicto, and that, therefore, the court would not give the relief prayed for; that said Glover, as the administrator of Maisy C. Crews, could not obtain relief to which his intestate in her lifetime would not have been entitled. (2) That said deed from Maisy C. Crews to D. L. Walker, being, as alleged in said bill, void on account of the fraud perpetrated by said Maisy C. Crews, neither she, in her lifetime, nor her administrator could assert any rights thereunder. (3) That the administrator of the grantor in a fraudulent conveyance could not have such conveyance canceled or annulled. (4) That complainant did...