Heflin v. Ashford

• Decision Date: 21 February 1888
• Citation: 85 Ala. 125,3 So. 760
• Parties: HEFLIN v. ASHFORD ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

3 So. 760

85 Ala. 125

HEFLIN v. ASHFORD ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 21, 1888

Appeal from chancery court, Lawrence county; THOMAS COBBS, Judge.

This was a bill in equity, filed by Richard Prewitt against Caroline Ashford and her agents, Alva E. and Edward C. Ashford, and others, to set aside a former decree against complainant, on the ground of fraud.

J. B. Moore and W. P. Chitwood, for appellant.

E. H. Foster and D. D. Shelby, for appellees.

SOMERVILLE, J.

It is settled in this state that a bill filed to impeach a decree for fraud must be filed within three years after the rendition of the decree sought to be impeached, or else it will be barred, with the exception of bills filed by infants, and persons of unsound mind, and married women, where the matter of the decree relates to their separate estates. Gordon v. Ross, 63 Ala. 363; Code 1886, § 3497. But a necessary modification of this principle is that the aggrieved party, under the statute, is entitled to 12 months within which to file such bill after the discovery of the facts constituting the fraud. Code 1886, § 2630; Porter v. Smith, 65 Ala. 169; Holt v. Wilson, 75 Ala. 58; Gordon v. Ross, supra. The alleged fraud in this case consists in the rendition on March 12, 1877, of the decree sought to be impeached, in violation of the terms of a written agreement of counsel in the cause. This fact was known to the complainant at least as early as May 14, 1877; for on that day the record shows that he applied to the chancellor for a rehearing in the cause, asking that the decree be set aside on substantially the same ground as that urged in the original bill in this suit, which was not filed until October 29, 1880, or more than three years after the discovery by complainant of the fact that such decree had been rendered. Whatever merit there may otherwise be in complainant's suit, this objection is entirely fatal to it, and bars any right to relief by him. The decree of the chancellor must be affirmed.