Groover v. Darden, 5 Div. 554
Decision Date | 05 November 1953 |
Docket Number | 5 Div. 554 |
Citation | 259 Ala. 607,68 So.2d 28 |
Parties | GROOVER et al. v. DARDEN et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Hines & Hines and C. S. Moon, La Fayette, for appellants.
R. C. Wallace, La Fayette, and John W. Johnson, Lanett, for appellees.
James Darden, a colored man, a resident of Chambers County, received a deed in 1933 from The Federal Land Bank of New Orleans conveying to him a tract of land situate in that county consisting of approximately 163 acres. The purchase price was $850, of which sum $170 was paid in cash. Darden executed a mortgage back to the bank to secure the remainder of the purchase price. Darden eventually paid the entire purchase price. On March 30, 1951, James Darden and wife, Lula Darden, executed a written instrument, in the form of a warranty deed, wherein it is recited that they conveyed the 163-acre tract of land to E. L. Groover for a consideration of $5 and other valuable consideration.
Within two weeks after the execution of the said written instrument bearing date of March 30, 1951, James Darden and wife advised Mr. Groover that they had not been aware of the fact that the instrument which they had executed on March 30, 1951, was a deed. They sought to get Groover to permit them to execute a mortgage on the said lands to secure the payment of the money which Groover had turned over to them upon the execution of the said instrument and for him to deliver up the deed. Groover refused to accede to the request.
James Darden on April 16, 1951, instituted this proceeding in the circuit court of Chambers County, in equity, against E. L. Groover and wife. By amendment Lula Darden, the wife of James Darden, was made a party complainant.
The pertinent parts of the bill of complaint read as follows:
The prayer for relief is as follows:
'Your complainant prays that this Honorable Court will do the following:
'(a) That the deeds heretofore mentioned be reformed so as to make them mortgages on the premises heretofore described.
'(b) That the respondents be restrained and enjoined by this Honorable Court, both pending the determination of this suit and permanently, from conveying any interest in the premises heretofore mentioned.
'(c) That an accounting be had, and the exact amount that is due to said respondents, or either of them, by your complainant be determined.
'And that your Honors will grant such other, further and different relief as unto your Honors may seem just and proper, and your complainant will ever pray.'
Upon the filing of the bill and its presentation to the trial court, an order was entered directing the issuance of a temporary injunction enjoining the respondents from conveying any interest in the real property described in the bill of complaint pending the determination of the suit. Upon the complainants executing the required bond, such an injunction was issued on April 17, 1951.
After the bill was amended in a manner not necessary to relate, the respondents filed their demurrer. A decree was rendered on August 21, 1951, overruling the demurrer and allowing respondents twenty days within which to answer. Not having answered within the time allowed, the respondents filed their motion to allow them to file answer on October 1, 1951, which motion was granted, and on that date the respondents filed their answer to the bill of complaint as amended. The bill of the complainants and the answer of the respondents were both subsequently amended, but it would serve no good purpose to treat here with those amendments.
There was no motion to dissolve or discharge the temporary injunction and we are not concerned here with the action of the trial court in ordering the issuance of the temporary injunction.
The cause came on to be heard on November 14, 1951. Testimony was taken orally before the trial court. On December 7, 1951, the trial court rendered a decree in pertinent parts as follows:
'It, therefore, follows that the court is of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in his bill of complaint.
'It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed by the court that the deed dated March 30, 1951, executed by the complainant, James Darden, and his wife, Lula Darden, to E. L. Groover, and recorded in Deed Book 111, Page 386, Records of Chambers County, Alabama, referred to in the testimony as Respondents' Exhibit A, be and the same is hereby declared to be a mortgage instead of a deed. And it is furthur ordered, adjudged and decreed by the court that said deed mentioned next hereinabove, whether it be a mortgage or a deed, be and the same is hereby declared to be null and void and is hereby set aside and canceled, as fully as if it had never been executed.
From the decree of December 7, 1951, the respondents below have appealed to this court.
Appellants, respondents below, have made nine assignments of error, but we will treat only those which are argued in brief of appellants. Taunton v. Trammell, 254 Ala. 252, 48 So.2d 190; Vinson v. Vinson, 256 Ala. 259, 54 So.2d 509.
The first assignment of error is that the trial court erred in overruling the demurrer of the respondents below.
It is provided by statute that rulings of the trial court on interlocutory decrees may be reviewed by this court on appeal from final decree. § 756, Title 7, Code 1940...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Weldon
...we generally treat only those grounds of the demurrer insisted upon in brief of appellant as having been well taken. Groover v. Darden, 259 Ala. 607, 68 So.2d 28, and cases cited; Southern Ry. Co. v. Sanford, 262 Ala. 5, 76 So.2d 164. No ground of any of the demurrers is referred to by numb......
-
First Alabama Bank of Montgomery, N.A. v. First State Ins. Co., Inc., 88-7387
....... On November 5, 1975, Johnson & Higgins made its oral presentation to ...861 (1933) (statements recklessly made); Groover v. Darden, 259 Ala. 607, 68 So.2d 28 (1953) (suppression ... Id. at 518, 533, 554; Johnson & Higgins' Answers to Plaintiff's ...Co., 103 N.J.Super. 406, 247 A.2d 370, 377-78 (Law Div.1968). . Closely related to these cases ......
-
McNeil v. Hadden, 4 Div. 737
...which are argued here in brief of counsel for appellant, but we will not treat those grounds of demurrer not argued. Groover v. Darden, 259 Ala. 607, 68 So.2d 28, and cases Grounds of demurrer which are argued in brief read as follows: 'Seventh. Because it is not alleged with sufficient cer......
-
Ellis v. Zuck
...Southern Building & Loan Ass'n v. Holmes, 227 Ala. 1, 149 So. 861 (1933) (statements recklessly made); Groover v. Darden, 259 Ala. 607, 68 So.2d 28 (1953) (suppression actionable). However, it is clear that before liability for nondisclosure or suppression of facts will arise there must be ......