Hall v. Hall

• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: FOSTER, Justice.
• Citation: Hall v. Hall, 241 Ala. 397, 2 So.2d 908 (Ala. 1941)
• Decision Date: 13 June 1941
• Docket Number: 3 Div. 339.
• Parties: HALL v. HALL et al.

2 So.2d 908

241 Ala. 397

HALL v. HALL et al.

3 Div. 339.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 13, 1941

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lowndes County; A. E. Gamble Judge. [Copyrighted Material Omitted]

[241 Ala. 399] Paragraph 6 of the bill is as follows:

"In or about the year 1932, respondent Mittie T. Hall, and her husband, Arthur B. Hall, came to the complainant, and the said Arthur B. Hall, in the presence and hearing of Mittie T Hall, said to the complainant that said promissory notes evidencing the indebtedness to Jenkins Brick Company of Montgomery, Alabama, were in default, that the complainant was liable on account of the fact that he had executed said notes, that said Jenkins Brick Company might demand payment, and that if the obligation was not paid by the complainant, suit would be filed against him to enforce the obligation and that he would be obliged to go into bankruptcy. The said Arthur B. Hall did then and there, and in the presence and hearing of Mittie T. Hall, further say to complainant that there were two indebtednesses which both he and complainant were jointly obliged to pay, the indebtedness to the Jenkins Brick Company and the indebtedness due to Mittie T. Hall and Mary T. Webster (which indebtedness was incurred to their father, the said T. G. Traylor during his lifetime), and the said Arthur B. Hall did then and there, in presence and hearing of Mittie T. Hall, make to the complainant the following proposition: He proposed that, if complainant would secure the payment to Mittie T. Hall and Mary T. Webster of said indebtedness originally amounting to $8,800 and give to Mittie T. Hall and Mary T. Webster a mortgage to the Swamp to guarantee the payment of said indebtedness, he, Arthur B. Hall, would, himself, pay and discharge the indebtedness then due and owing to the said Jenkins Brick Company, which indebtedness, according to complainant's information, was in excess of the sum of $8,800.

"At the time said statements were made, complainant was sixty-four years of age, and in failing health and poor financial circumstances. A general state of depression existed and complainant had no means of procuring funds with which to immediately discharge his obligations. The complainant believed said representations made by said Arthur B. Hall in the presence and hearing of Mittie T. Hall as to the immediate necessity of discharging said obligations to said Jenkins Brick Company, and realizing that he was not financially able to immediately discharge said obligation, and in complete reliance upon the good faith, honesty, and integrity of the said Arthur B. Hall, he was then and there placed in a state of anxiety and extreme apprehension. Believing and relying upon the representations of said Arthur B. Hall, as aforesaid, and the promises made by him, and reduced thereby to a state of anxiety and fear as aforesaid, the complainant thereupon did execute to respondent, Mittie T. Hall, and to Mittie T. Hall, Trustee, a mortgage conveying to her the Swamp to secure the payment of the amount of $14,400 which said sum was intended to represent the said sum of $8,800 hereinabove referred to with accruals of interest to the time of the execution of said mortgage. A true and correct copy of said mortgage is hereto attached marked 'Exhibit A' and made a part hereof.

"Complainant avers that the said representations, statements, and promises of the said Arthur B. Hall herein-above averred, and made in the presence and hearing of the respondent, Mittie T. Hall, were false, and known to be false by the person making them, and were made with the purpose and intent of fraudulently obtaining said mortgage on complainant's said property, as well as relieving Arthur B. Hall, from paying the indebtedness for which he and complainant were jointly liable, well knowing at the time that the complainant was in failing health, advancing years, and poor financial condition, and that complainant had no reasonable prospect of ever being in a position to pay the amount expressed in said mortgage. Said above averred statements, representations, and promises of the said Arthur B. Hall made in the presence and hearing of Mittie T. Hall were false and Known to be so by him at the time they were made in that the said Arthur B. Hall, had no intention of procuring the payment of said notes held by the said Jenkins Brick Company, but on the contrary, complainant avers the fact to be that at the time said representations were made, said Jenkins Brick Company had forgiven the debt to the said Arthur B. Hall and that in the year 1928, the said debt had been charged off to profit and loss by said Jenkins Brick Company, and that the notes evidencing said indebtedness hereinabove described had been surrendered without any consideration whatever to the said Arthur B. Hall, all of which the said Arthur B. Hall knew at the time of the statements, representations, and promises hereinabove averred, and of which this complainant was ignorant and did not discover until the month of May, 1940, he, during all times intervening, being completely ignorant of the falsity of the representations and statements made by the said Arthur B. Hall as above averred.

"Complainant further avers by reason of the fraudulent representations and statements hereinabove set forth which induced its execution, said mortgage, a copy of which is attached as 'Exhibit A' to this bill, was fraudulently procured and void, and the lien purporting to be created on the property conveyed therein was invalid and void.

"He further alleges that the alleged consideration of $14,400 to secure which said mortgage purports to have been given was in point of fact the joint liability of complainant and the said A. B. Hall. If complainant is mistaken as to that being the correct amount owing them he avers that whatever the amount actually owing was the joint liability of complainant and the said A. B. Hall and that the estate of the said A. B. Hall should be made to account to the said Mittie T. Hall and Mittie T. Hall, Trustee, for one-half of said indebtedness. Complainant offers to do equity in all respects with reference to the payment of whatever amount he in equity and good conscience owes on said indebtedness and offers to pay whatever this Honorable court decrees should be paid by him."

Mead & Moebes, of Birmingham, and D. M. Powell, of Greenville, for appellant.

Joe R. Bell, of Hayneville, Rushton, Johnston & Williams, of Montgomery, and Pettus & Fuller, of Selma, for appellees.

FOSTER Justice.

Appellant, complainant in the cause, instituted this suit in equity to declare and enforce certain rights claimed as a result of transactions with his deceased brother and his wife whereby on September 23, 1934, appellant, whom we will designate as William (Hall), and his wife executed a deed to Mittie Hall, wife of his brother Arthur Hall, whom we will designate as Arthur, for a recited consideration of $16,000. It comes here on appeal from a decree sustaining the demurrer of several respondents to the bill, and therefore the allegations of the bill are taken as true for the purpose of this appeal.

William had previously executed a mortgage to Mittie Hall individually and as trustee (for her sister Mary Webster) for an indebtedness which is alleged to have become the amount of $16,000, at the time when said deed was executed. The land included in both transactions is the same and consisted of a valuable plantation of approximately 2560 acres known as the "Swamp Place."

The bill alleges that after the mortgage became due, William made an unsuccessful effort to borrow the money to pay it. That then Arthur, with whom William was in the closest confidential relations, came to him and induced him to execute the deed mentioned upon the representation made in the presence of Mittie that there was a prospect to sell this land to the United States for $30,000. That it would not purchase the land encumbered by a lien, and if he would execute a deed to Mittie the title would be cleared and the sale expeditiously made. That, in that event, the amount due on the mortgage would be deducted and the balance of the purchase price to the United States would be paid to William. That no sale would be made for less than $30,000. That relying upon the representations and promises made by Arthur, and being in dire and needy circumstances and unable to discharge the said indebtedness he executed the deed: that there was no other consideration. That said land was reasonably worth $30,000. That Arthur and Mittie then made a sale of said property to the United States for $25,041.57, by deed dated May 3, 1937. That said sum was paid to Mittie by the United States.

The bill then alleges that she paid said sum to respondent Beers in payment of a mortgage which Arthur owed him secured by a mortgage on the separate land of Arthur, which was also a large and valuable tract known as "The Valley." That the deed William made to Mittie, supra, was void by virtue of the unconscionable advantage and fraud, as stated, and that the amount paid by the United States to Mittie was impressed with a trust in his favor. That Arthur and Mittie acted in concert to obtain the benefit of said entire sum. Arthur died December 18, 1939. The bill was filed September 10, 1940.

The bill prays for a decree declaring the invalidity of the deed from William to Mittie, supra, and that a trust be declared on the fund paid to Mittie, and that Mittie, personally and as administratrix of the estate of Arthur, be required to account to and pay William the sum thus due. That William be declared to have the right of subrogation to the mortgage of Beers, to the extent of the payment to him of the trust fund upon William paying him the balance due on his...