Hamilton v. Watson
| Decision Date | 24 March 1927 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 705 |
| Citation | 112 So. 115,215 Ala. 550 |
| Parties | HAMILTON v. WATSON. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from the Circuit Court, St. Clair County; O.A. Steele, Judge.
Bill in equity by Cora A. Hamilton, as administratrix of the estate of N.O. Hamilton, deceased, against Mentie C. Watson, as administratrix of the estate of E.E. Hamilton, deceased wherein defendant filed a cross-bill. From the decree complainant appeals. Affirmed.
Merrill Field & Allen, of Anniston, for appellant.
J.S McLendon and Rudulph & Smith, all of Birmingham, for appellee.
The bill in this case was filed by the appellant as the administratrix of N.O. Hamilton, deceased, against the appellee, the administratrix of E.E. Hamilton, deceased, to enjoin an action at law brought by the appellee against the appellant for money had and received. The equity of the bill was sustained in the case of Watson v. Hamilton, 211 Ala. 688, 101 So. 609, on the assertion of the complainant, that her intestate, as the surviving husband of E.E. Hamilton, deceased, was, under the statute of distribution, entitled to one-half of the money sought to be recovered in the action at law, and that no necessity existed for "pushing the property through the diminishing process of administration," a defense not available in the action at law, but sufficient to authorize the intervention of a court of equity. The facts upon which the equity of the original bill is predicated, above stated, were admitted in the answer of the defendant.
On submission of the cause for final decree, the testimony being taken ore tenus, the court granted the relief according to the averments and prayer of the original bill, perpetually enjoining the action at law, conditioned upon the complainant paying to the respondent one-half of the money collected by complainant's intestate, and rendered a decree against the complainant for the amount ascertained to be due to the respondent. This appeal is from the final decree.
Before the submission of the cause for final decree, but after the testimony had been taken and the material averments of the original bill had been admitted, without striking out the averments of the original bill, the effect of which are hereinabove stated, the complainant added by amendment paragraphs 6 and 7. Paragraph 6, in short, asserts that the money in controversy between the parties and the subject-matter of the action at law was the proceeds of the certificates of deposit issued by the bank to the said E.E. Hamilton, the deceased wife of N.O. Hamilton, for money deposited by her belonging to the said N.O. Hamilton, and without the knowledge and consent of the said N.O. Hamilton; that said certificates of deposit were obtained by the said N.O. Hamilton rightfully; that they were his property, and he had the right to collect the money on them from the bank; and that the estate of E.E. Hamilton, deceased, had no rights, legal or equitable, in the money so received by him. Paragraph 7 averred that Mrs. Watson had notice or knowledge that her sister, the said E.E. Hamilton, had money on deposit in the bank four months before her death, and had been guilty of negligence and laches in prosecuting her claim.
If the averments of paragraph 6 portray the true facts of the case, it is clear that the complainant had a complete defense to the action at law, available to her under the general issue. The burden was on the plaintiff there to show that the money in controversy, ex aequo et bono, belonged to the plaintiff as the administratrix of the estate of E.E. Hamilton, deceased. Farmers' Bank & Trust Co. v. Keihn, 192 Ala. 53, 68 So. 363. The bill as thus amended therefore presents the complainant's case in two aspects, one inconsistent with the other. In one aspect the bill has equity, in the other it is without equity.
Under this state of the pleadings it was the duty of the court on final hearing to disregard that aspect of the bill which was without equity and consider the case on the aspect in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chestang v. Tensaw Land & Timber Co.
...jurisdiction, he will not be permitted to assert an inconsistent theory which would deprive the court of jurisdiction. Hamilton v. Watson, 215 Ala. 550, 112 So. 115; Ray v. Hilman, 229 Ala. 424, 157 So. 676. Assuming that the bill and answer conform to the requirements of the statute, and t......
-
Ballenger v. Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co., 6 Div. 73
...an equitable principle and is a defense only to suits in equity. City of Anniston v. Dempsey, 253 Ala. 597, 45 So.2d 773; Hamilton v. Watson, 215 Ala. 550, 112 So. 115; Courson v. Tollison, 226 Ala. 530, 147 So. 635; Oxford v. Estes, 229 Ala. 606, 158 So. 534; Meeks v. Meeks, 245 Ala. 559, ......
-
Hulett v. Snook
... ... Hamilton v. Watson, 215 Ala ... 550, 112 So. 115 ... "One ... who invokes or voluntarily submits himself to the ... jurisdiction of ... ...
-
Wood v. Master Schools, Inc.
...complainant discovered the fraud and negotiations ended. The bill on its face does not show laches or bar of statute. Hamilton v. Watson, 215 Ala. 550, 112 So. 115. Bullard Shoals Mining Co. v. Spencer, as in this, the inadequacy of a remedy at law was made apparent; held that, if suits wer......