Hale v. Hale

• Decision Date: 01 February 1917
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 853
• Citation: 75 So. 150,201 Ala. 28
• Parties: HALE v. HALE et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

75 So. 150

201 Ala. 28

HALE v. HALE et al.

7 Div. 853

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 1, 1917

Rehearing Denied May 17, 1917

Appeal from Chancery Court, Cherokee County; W.W. Whiteside Chancellor.

Suit by W.J. Hale, pro ami, against A.L. Hale and others. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Motley & Motley and W.H. Standifer, all of Gadsden, for appellant.

Hugh Reed and R.F. Conner, both of Center, for appellees.

THOMAS J.

The bill in this cause seeks the cancellation of several conveyances, on the ground of the insanity of the grantor at the time the conveyances were executed. The bill was amended several times. As last amended (the form of the bill on which the trial was had) it does not purport to be aided by any former bill or amendment. A material averment of fact, as to the execution of the conveyances cancellation of which is sought, is:

"That on said day [January 20th, 1915] the said W.J Hale executed a warranty deed to the above-described lands to A.L. Hale, a copy of which deed is attached to the original bill filed in this case and marked 'Exhibit A,' and which is prayed to be taken as a part of this amended bill with usual leave of reference. That your orator, W.Y. Hale was at the time of the execution of said warranty deed a person of unsound mind, or non compos mentis, and was not capable or competent to execute said deed on account of insanity; and that your orator, W.J. Hale, is now of unsound mind. That on the 14th day of April, 1915, the said A.L. Hale and wife executed their trust deed to W.M. Chambers, to secure $200 due to Russell Mackey, a copy of which deed of trust is attached to the original bill heretofore filed in this case marked 'Exhibit B,' and which is prayed to be taken as a part of this amended bill with the usual leave of reference. That the said Russell Mackey, at the time he took said deed of trust, knew of your orator's mental condition, and knew that your orator was not mentally capable to execute said deed to A.L. Hale at the time the same was executed, on account of the insanity of your orator, W.J Hale."

It is further averred in the amended bill that orator submits himself to do, perform, or pay any amount he should or ought to pay to either said A.L. Hale or Russell Mackey, or both, or to W.M. Chambers, etc. The said A.L. Hale, Russell Mackey, and W.M. Chambers are made parties defendant to the bill. Answering, the said respondents denied that complainant was of unsound mind, denied that he was not competent to execute said deed on account of insanity, and denied that when the deed of trust was made by Hale to W.M. Chambers, to secure the $200 due to Russell Mackey, the said Mackey knew of the mental condition of W.J. Hale, and knew that he was not mentally capable of executing said deed to A.L. Hale by reason of his insanity. With this answer was incorporated a demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the averments of the bill as amended, for that it: (1) Failed "to allege a lack of good faith on the part of either of the respondents in the transaction" in question; and (2) failed "to allege the absence of a valuable consideration for the deed sought to be canceled." Submission for final decree was had by respondents, among other things, on their answers, and "upon their demurrers incorporated in their said answers to the bill as last amended," etc. On final decree the chancellor held that:

"The bill as last amended does not negative the fact that said deed and mortgage are supported by valuable consideration, neither does it allege that A.L. Hale had any notice er knowledge that W.J. Hale was insane at the time said deed was executed. It seems that prior to the act of the Legislature which now appears as sections 3347 and 3348 of the Code, the question of the restoration of a valuable consideration for a deed made

...