Hall v. Britton

• Citation: 113 So. 238,216 Ala. 265
• Decision Date: 26 May 1927
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 592
• Parties: HALL v. BRITTON et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

113 So. 238

216 Ala. 265

HALL v. BRITTON et al.

6 Div. 592

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 26, 1927

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; William M. Walker Judge.

Bill by Mary Hall, by her next friend, Leila Brooks, against Jim Britton and others to cancel a mortgage and for an injunction. From a decree denying relief and dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Horace C. Wilkinson, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Hugh A Locke, of Birmingham, and C.L. Odell, of Bessemer, for appellees.

SOMERVILLE J.

The bill of complaint is filed by Mary Hall, the surviving wife of Jim Hall, deceased, to cancel a mortgage executed by them jointly on September 5, 1915, to F.R. Matthews, conveying the homestead of Jim Hall to secure a debt of $240.84. It appears that this mortgage was foreclosed under the power of sale on October 17th. Thereafter, on November 30, 1922, the mortgagee conveyed the property by warranty deed to the respondent, Jim Britton. It appears also that Matthews, for the use of Jim Britton, has recovered judgment in ejectment against the complainant, under which a writ of possession has been issued, and is in the hands of the sheriff for execution. The bill prays for a writ of injunction, both temporary and permanent, against F.R. Matthews, Jim Britton, and T.J Shirley, as sheriff, enjoining them from interfering with complainant's possession of the property; and that the mortgage and the foreclosure thereunder be canceled and avoided on the ground that complainant was non compos mentis when she executed the mortgage, as alleged in the bill.

It is the settled law in this state that the insanity of the wife who joins with her husband in the alienation of the homestead renders the conveyance entirely void; such a conveyance not being within the protection given to bona fide purchasers of land from insane persons under sections 6822 and 6823 of the Code. Beaty v. Washam, 205 Ala. 92, 87 So. 337; Washam v. Beaty, 210 Ala. 635, 99 So. 163; Thompson v. N.E. Mort. Sec. Co., 110 Ala. 400, 18 So. 315, 55 Am.St.Rep. 29.

The only issue presented, therefore, is a question of fact--the mental capacity, vel non, of the complainant to join in the execution of the mortgage conveying her husband's homestead.

A great number of witnesses were examined orally in the presence of the court on this issue of fact. In a general way the testimony covered a period of about 30 years antedating the time of the trial, and established the fact, beyond any reasonable controversy, we think, that at times, once before and once after September 5, 1915, complainant had been violently insane, and was lacking in that degree of mental sanity and intelligence requisite for contractual capacity. It appears, however, with reasonable certainty that, during the period covered, she was not constantly insane, but had many periods of normality. The witnesses are in general agreement that complainant suffered two spells of violent insanity--one prior to 1900 and the other about 1920, or a little later. The evidence is not clear as to her mental condition during the intervening period. Complainant's witnesses almost uniformly agree that "her mind would come and go"; that "she has been franzy off and on occasionally"; and that "sometimes she is at herself and talks all right." One witness stated that she lost her mind something over 30 years ago, and "has been absent from her mind ever since." Another stated that the...