Hill v. Moone

• Decision Date: 09 August 1894
• Citation: 16 So. 67,104 Ala. 353
• Parties: HILL ET AL. v. MOONE ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

16 So. 67

104 Ala. 353

HILL ET AL. v. MOONE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

August 9, 1894

Appeal from chancery court, Henry county.

Action by Hill Bros. and others against Perry Moone and others to set aside, as fraudulent, certain sales of goods. A demurrer to the bill was sustained, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

A. E Pace, for appellants.

T. M Espy, for appellees.

HEAD J.

This is a creditors' bill to set aside certain conveyances, made by Perry Moone, as fraudulent. There are a number of such sales attacked by the bill: (1) One to the Bank of Dothan October 3, 1892, conveying a large amount of personal property, and about the same time, by a separate transfer certain notes or accounts on W. C. O'Neal & Co.; (2) sundry sales of goods, during the summer and fall of 1892, to Blount, Nicholson & Co.; (3) sundry sales of goods, during the summer and fall of 1892, to W. C. O'Neal & Co. There is no allegation that these several sales had any actual connection with each other, in any way, either in fact or intent. The respondents each assigned, among others, the following grounds of demurrer to the bill, which the chancellor sustained; and the appeal is from his decretal order in that behalf, viz.: "The bill seeks to hold the different respondents to account for goods received from Perry Moone at different times, and by different respondents and in different amounts, and fails to allege any facts showing that they had any conversation, one with the other, or that the various acts complained of are part and parcel of one fraudulent transaction or scheme." The other ground sustained is substantially the same. We regard it a settled rule in this state that such a bill is not multifarious. Halstead v. Shepard, 23 ala. 558; Lehman v. Meyer, 67 Ala. 396; Russell v. Garrett, 75 Ala. 350; Burford v. Steele, 80 Ala. 147; Hinds v. Hinds, Id. 225; Handley v. Heflin, 84 Ala. 600, 4 So. 725. These cases explain the reason of the rule, and a careful reading of them will show that it is not essential to the joinder that there should have been participation by all the grantees in the making of all the transfers. See the rule in New York and other states, stated in the note, Fellows v. Fellows, 15 Am. Dec., at page 428, cited approvingly by this court in Hinds v. Hinds, supra. The chancellor erred in his conclusion that the bill was multifarious, and his decretal order is reversed and the cause remanded. ...