Heflin v. Heflin

• Decision Date: 31 March 1927
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 745
• Citation: 216 Ala. 519,113 So. 535
• Parties: HEFLIN v. HEFLIN.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

113 So. 535

216 Ala. 519

HEFLIN v. HEFLIN.

6 Div. 745

Supreme Court of Alabama

March 31, 1927

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1927

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; William M. Walker Judge.

Bill in equity by Harrington P. Heflin against Wyatt Heflin. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. Reversed rendered, and remanded.

Henry Upson Sims and McClellan, Rice & Stone, all of Birmingham for appellant.

Rudulph & Smith, of Birmingham, for appellee.

GARDNER J.

The bill in this cause was filed by appellant against appellee to declare a resulting trust in a one-half interest in certain lands situated in Jefferson county. The sufficiency of the bill was determined on former appeal from a decree overruling the demurrer interposed thereto. Heflin v. Heflin, 208 Ala. 69, 93 So. 719.

Defendant filed an answer and a cross-bill, and, upon submission of the cause for final decree on pleadings and proof, a decree was rendered denying complainant relief and dismissing the bill, and also dismissing defendant's cross-bill. From the decree, complainant has prosecuted this appeal. There was no cross-appeal or cross-assignment of error by defendant, and the question here for determination is the correctness of the decree denying relief to complainant and dismissing his original bill.

The evidence is voluminous, and was taken by depositions, and not heard orally before the court. The cause is therefore here to be considered without the indulgence of any presumption in favor of the decree of the trial court. Section 10276, Code of 1923.

From the conveyance to defendant, the presumption arises that it fully speaks the truth, and such presumption must prevail until the contrary is established beyond reasonable controversy. The burden of proof to overcome such presumption rests upon complainant. The proof must correspond with the pleadings, and must be clear, full, satisfactory, and convincing. Lehman v. Lewis, 62 Ala. 129; Fowler v. Fowler, 205 Ala. 514, 88 So. 648; Heflin v. Heflin, supra.

The question here for determination is one of fact. As previously noted, the evidence is voluminous, and to enter any detailed discussion would serve no useful purpose and extend this opinion to undue length, nor has such been the policy of this court since the passage of the Act of 1915, p. 594. Koger v. State, 110 So. 573. "Protracted discussions of evidence, by an appellate court, are generally unnecessary and unprofitable, and should be avoided." Starke v. Blackwell, 36 Ala. 154.

This is an unfortunate litigation between two brothers, and the foregoing observation is therefore here particularly applicable. A few general observations therefore as to the evidence, and our conclusion thereon, will suffice.

That the purchase of this property first originated with complainant, and that he carried on all negotiations in regard thereto with the vendor, is established without controversy. The relationship between these two brothers was intimate, living together during the years of their early struggles in their respective professions. The information gained was from complainant. The defendant admits that under the original agreement, as he understood it, complainant was to have a one-half interest in the property here involved, should he pay one-half of the purchase price.

Defendant, it seems, held the title to some other lots in Jefferson county purchased by complainant, afterwards conveyed by him to complainant. The explanation of complainant as to such character of purchase was that he himself was not careful as an investor or as a money-saving depositor, while his brother, the defendant, was, and that he thought this method would assist him in holding onto the property. The notes were signed by defendant, and, after a period of years and the final payment of the purchase-money notes, deed made to defendant. All of these negotiations were had by complainant with the seller, with whom he was well acquainted and on most friendly terms. That the seller understood that complainant and defendant were jointly interested as purchasers of this property is well established by the proof. The admission on defendant's part, that the original agreement contemplated a joint and equal interest in the property if complainant paid his part of the purchase price, must necessarily somewhat lessen the force and effect of the character of the transaction. Indeed, so far as concerns the establishment of the bill's averments, it reduces the principal issue to the ascertainment of one fact, as to whether or not complainant paid his portion of the purchase price. Upon this issue the testimony of complainant and respondent is in sharp conflict.

The testimony of complainant emphatically supports the allegations of his bill. Some of the purchase-money notes, marked "Satisfied," are in his possession and offered in evidence as exhibits to his testimony, and the fact that he paid interest on certain deferred payments out of his own funds is so clearly established as to require no discussion, if, indeed, it is controverted at all. But no comparison or analysis as to the testimony of these two brothers is here intended or will be made, though it may be said in passing, in view of its special mention by the trial court, that in our opinion entirely too much weight appears to have been given defendant's memorandum diary entry.

Complainant's insistence is strongly supported by the testimony of his three brothers, Dr. Howell T. Heflin, Rev. Walter W. Heflin, and Senator T.J. Heflin. These brothers testify that on various occasions, in discussing family affairs, defendant stated that he and complainant were equally interested in this property. Rev. Walter Heflin expresses it in the following manner:

"It was commonly known among all of the brothers that they owned this property jointly. I have heard Wyatt say often that H.P. was equally interested with him in the property. My information was gained from both of them, each agreeing that H.P. having paid the purchase money and being equal owners, and there has never been any question about it until recently."

Dr Howell Heflin also testified to like effect that he had heard defendant admit complainant's interest in the property several times. Senator Heflin also testified to several conversations with defendant in which complainant's...