Hall v. Hall
Decision Date | 13 June 1941 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 339. |
Citation | 241 Ala. 397,2 So.2d 908 |
Parties | HALL v. HALL et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lowndes County; A. E. Gamble Judge. [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[241 Ala. 399] Paragraph 6 of the bill is as follows:
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.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Capps
...for grantee's agreement to sell leases and divide receipts with grantors created an express trust in favor of grantor); Hall v. Hall, 241 Ala. 397, 2 So.2d 908 (1941) (trust created where plaintiff mortgagor deeded title to land to defendant mortgagee in consideration of the defendant's agr......
-
Ellis v. Zuck
...Corp. v. Kelly, 227 Ala. 516, 150 So. 682 (1933). It is well settled that money can be the subject of conversion. Hall v. Hall, 241 Ala. 397, 2 So.2d 908 (1941). When the conversion is attended by rudeness, wantonness, recklessness, or insulting manner, or accompanied by circumstances of fr......
-
Smith-Howard Gin Co. v. Ogletree
... ... 1413; ... Kelly v. Carmichael, 217 Ala. 534, 117 So. 67; ... Badham et al. v. Johnston et al., 239 Ala. 48, 50, ... 193 So. 420; Hall v. Hall, 241 Ala. 397, 406, 2 ... So.2d 908; Barnes v. Powell, 241 Ala. 409, 410, 3 ... So.2d 80; Dean v. Lusk, 241 Ala. 519, 525, 3 So.2d ... ...
-
Upchurch v. Goodroe
...decree does not undertake to vacate the assignment but to enforce a trust on the property into which the lease is traced. Hall v. Hall, 241 Ala. 397, 2 So.2d 908(14); Culver v. Guyer, 129 Ala. 602, 29 So. 779; v. Hockinsmith, 158 Ala. 234, 48 So. 541; Smith v. Perry, 56 Ala. 266. Rosenau is......