Heidt v. Wallace

• Decision Date: 22 February 1940
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 979.
• Citation: 239 Ala. 246,194 So. 501
• Parties: HEIDT ET AL. v. WALLACE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

194 So. 501

239 Ala. 246

HEIDT ET AL. v. WALLACE.

8 Div. 979.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 22, 1940

Rehearing Denied March 21, 1940.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lawrence County; A. A. Griffith, Judge.

Action of ejectment by J. Paul Heidt and others against B. P Wallace. Defendant's motion to transfer the case to the equity side of the docket was granted, and defendant then filed a bill to establish an equitable title to the land involved. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill, J Paul Heidt and others appeal.

Reversed and remanded.

p>Page Perdue & Miller, of Moulton, for appellants.

H. A Entrekin, of Cullman, for appellee.

ANDERSON Chief Justice.

This was an action of ejectment by the appellants, then plaintiffs, versus the appellees, then defendants. Defendant then moved to transfer the case under the statute to the equity side of the docket, which said motion was granted. The defendant then filed a bill for the purpose of establishing an equitable title.

It appears that the plaintiffs deraigned title through a deed executed by W. T. Preuit to his wife Adrian Preuit on December the 17th, 1881, and which was recorded December the 22nd, 1881.

The defendant claims title under a tax deed executed September the 2nd, 1897. The deed reciting that the sale was made under a decree made May the 21st, 1894, under which the land was sold as the property of W. T. Preuit, not as the property of his wife who held the record title to same.

As we understand, the present bill of complaint seeks to show that the deed from Preuit to his wife was fraudulent and void and that, even if said deed was not void under the married woman's law then existing, Mrs. Preuit had only an equitable title to the land, the legal title being in the husband, and that therefore the tax was properly assessed against him and sold as his property and not of the wife.

This court has repeatedly held that conveyances condemned by Section 8038 of the Code of 1923, and its predecessors, were voidable as to a certain class and were valid and binding between the parties. It is only those who are or may be injured by the fraudulent transaction who can avail themselves of the fraud. It is operative as between the parties and a stranger, who is not a creditor or purchaser and whose rights have in no way been affected, can not complain. Paulk v. Wolfe, Gillespie & Co., 34 Ala. 541; Yeend, Adm'r v. Weeks et al., 104 Ala. 331, 16 So. 165, 53 Am.St.Rep. 50; Robins, Fry & Co. v. Wooten, 128 Ala. 373, 30 So. 681.

It may be...