Headley v. Bell

• Decision Date: 31 May 1888
• Citation: 84 Ala. 346,4 So. 391
• Parties: HEADLEY v. BELL ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

4 So. 391

84 Ala. 346

HEADLEY v. BELL ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 31, 1888

Appeal from chancery court, Chilton county; S. K. MCSPADDEN Chancellor.

W A. Collier, for appellant.

Watts & Son, for appellees.

STONE C.J.

In March, 1884, Headley executed a mortgage to the Bells, to secure them for advances made and to be made, to enable the former to make a crop that year. The mortgage conveyed the crop to be grown by Headley and 80 acres of land. The advances made by the Bells on the faith of this mortgage amounted to about $60. After taking this mortgage, and making the advances, the Bells discovered that Headley had made an older mortgage of his crop to one Robertson, to secure him in a debt of about $60. The Bells thereupon purchased the Robertson debt and mortgage, paying the face value of the debt therefor. After the maturity of the crop, the Bells obtained possession of it by attachment, and had it sold. The net proceeds of the crop, after paying expenses of seizing and selling, amounted to about $95, leaving an unpaid balance on the two mortgage debts of $23 or $25. The Bells thereupon advertised the land for sale under the power contained in the mortgage, sold it, and themselves became the purchasers, at $40. This, added to the proceeds of the crop, overpaid the mortgage debts. Headley requested the Bells to enter satisfaction on the record of the mortgage of March, 1884, which, for insufficient reasons, they refused to do. He thereupon sued them, and recovered a judgment for $200, the statutory penalty. The present suit is a bill by the Bells against Headley and seeks to enjoin the collection of said judgment on the ground that they had a valid defense to the suit, and did not know of its existence until after the judgment was rendered and the court had adjourned. The particular ground relied on is, that Headley had neither right nor title to the land conveyed in the mortgage, but that the same belonged to another; that, in making the mortgage he had represented that he owned it, and that it was his homestead; and he conveyed it as such. The bill avers that in fact he never had resided on the land, and had no valid claim to it whatever.

A bill such as this, to be sufficient, must not rest on the simple averment that there was a valid defense, of which defendant had no knowledge until after judgment. Suitors must be diligent; and, to make a case for relief, it must appear in the...