Harrison v. Stuart
| Decision Date | 23 May 1929 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 400. |
| Citation | 219 Ala. 405,122 So. 623 |
| Parties | HARRISON ET AL. v. STUART. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Covington County; Emmet S. Thigpen Judge.
Creditor's bill by M. Hugh Stuart, as trustee in bankruptcy, against M G. Harrison and others. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.
A Whaley, of Andalusia, for appellants.
Leon G Brooks, of Brewton, and Baldwin & Murphy, of Andalusia, for appellee.
This is a bill filed by the appellee as trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of M. G. Harrison, Charles Dixon, and Jesse Dixon, bankrupts, against the bankrupts, Agnes Dixon and Nell Harrison, to set aside and annul, as fraudulent, several certain separate and distinct conveyances and transfers of several certain different and distinct properties, real and personal, and prays in the alternative that said conveyances and transfers be declared a general assignment for the benefit of creditors.
The defendants jointly and severally filed demurrers to the bill and the several paragraphs thereof, assigning, among other grounds, that there is no equity in the bill; that the same is multifarious in that the same contains matters relative to several different alleged sales, transfers, or assignments, which are not shown to be connected with each other as one common transaction and purpose; that it is not alleged and stated with certainty who the alleged creditors are; misjoinder of parties defendant; that it is not alleged or shown the amount of the indebtedness of the alleged bankrupts.
The court overruled the demurrers, and the defendants have appealed and assigned this ruling of the court as error.
The averments in respect to the indebtedness are, that on and prior to March 4, 1927, July 19, 1927, and September 10, 1927 (these being the dates of the alleged transfers and conveyances), the said M. G. Harrison, Jesse Dixon, and Charles Dixon "were indebted to various creditors by accounts, and which said accounts have been proven in the bankrupt court for the Middle district of Alabama, Northern division, as provided by law, *** complainants aver that at the time said several conveyances were executed the said M. G. Harrison, Jesse Dixon, and Charles Dixon were insolvent and unable to pay their existing debts, and that they remained insolvent until after they were adjudged bankrupts."
One of said alleged fraudulent transfers was made by Charles Dixon and M. G. Harrison, partners doing business as Dixie Turpentine Company, to Nell Harrison; some were made by Charles Dixon to Agnes Dixon; others were made by M. G. Harrison and Charles Dixon to Nell Dixon, another by Jesse Dixon to Agnes Dixon, and another by Jesse Dixon and Claudya Dixon to Agnes Dixon. Each and all of said transfers related to separate and distinct parcels of real property, commodities, or things.
While it appears, though there is no direct positive averment of the fact, that M. G. Harrison and Charles Dixon were or had been engaged in business as partners under the firm name and style of Dixie Turpentine Company, it is not averred that the partnership, as well as the individuals, was adjudged bankrupt; nor is it averred that Jesse Dixon was in any way connected with Harrison and Charles Dixon, or that their estate in bankruptcy was a common estate, or that the creditors were common creditors of all of said bankrupts.
A trustee...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McClintock v. McEachin
... ... action, is unconcerned with the facts of the other ... Birmingham Bar Ass'n v. Phillips & Marsh et al., 239 ... Ala. 650, 196 So. 725; Harrison et al. v. Stuart, ... 219 Ala. 405, 122 So. 623; Alabama Butane Gas Co. et al ... v. Tarrant Land Co., 244 Ala. 638, 15 So.2d 105; ... Ford v ... ...
-
Puckett v. Russell
... ... against the bankrupt estate. The recitals in this respect ... conform to the requirements of Harrison v. Stuart, ... 219 Ala. 405, 122 So. 623, which do not conflict with ... Cartwright v. West, 185 Ala. 41, 64 So. 293, since ... neither case ... ...
-
Horan v. Horan
...due at the time the bill is filed. Jones v. Massey, 79 Ala. 370; Freider v. Lienkauff and Straus, 92 Ala. 469, 8 So. 758; Harrison v. Stuart, 219 Ala. 405, 122 So. 623; McDuffie v. Lynchburg Shoe Co., 178 Ala. 268, 59 So. The bill shows that some of the installments were due, so that it jus......
-
Williams v. Schaeffer
...not alleged that the claims of the creditors were allowed in the bankrupt court. Appellants rely on the following in Harrison v. Stuart, 219 Ala. 405, 407, 122 So. 623, 624, where this court 'Where, as here, the bill is by a trustee in bankruptcy, it should aver the names of the creditors, ......