Hudson v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 11 April 1905 |
| Citation | 39 So. 227,144 Ala. 410 |
| Parties | HUDSON ET AL. v. JACKSON. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chancery Court, Jefferson County; John C. Carmichael Chancellor.
"To be officially reported."
Bill by Mitta Jackson against Eli Hudson and others. From a judgment overruling a demurrer to the bill and a motion to dismiss for want of equity, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
W. S Welch, for appellants.
On the 8th day of April, 1903, Mitta Jackson, the complainant in this case, borrowed from the Citizens' Bank of Bessemer $108.70, and to secure the payment of the loan executed to the bank a mortgage on a town lot located in the town of Brighton, in Jefferson county. The mortgage was payable 30 days from the date of its execution. Some time in July 1903--the exact day is not shown--the mortgage was transferred to Eli Hudson by the bank, but the transfer did not convey the legal title of the mortgagee in the lands. On the 7th day of July, 1903, and after the transfer of the mortgage to Hudson, Mitta Jackson executed to Eli Hudson a deed to the lot which she had mortgaged. Subsequent to the execution of the deed to Hudson by Mitta Jackson, Hudson conveyed the lot by deed to W. A. Reed, and Reed conveyed by deed to one Tom Gardner. Mitta Jackson remained in possession of the lot, and is still in possession. On the 6th day of November, 1903, Tom Gardner instituted a statutory ejectment suit in the city court of Bessemer against Mitta Jackson to recover possession of the lot.
On the 14th of November, 1903, Mitta Jackson brought the bill in this case in the chancery court of Jefferson county for the purpose of having the deed made by her to Eli Hudson declared void for fraud alleged to have been practiced by Hudson upon complainant in procuring the execution of the deed, to have the said deed removed as a cloud on complainant's title to declare the deed from Hudson to Reed and from Reed to Gardner void, and to enjoin Tom Gardner from the further prosecution of the ejectment suit. The bill is exhibited against Eli Hudson, the Citizens' Bank, W. A. Reed, and Tom Gardner. It is alleged in the bill that the complainant is willing, and she offers in the bill, to pay any amount which the court may ascertain to be due from her to any of the parties defendant. The complainant prays, among other things, that a reference should be held by the register to ascertain the amount due to Eli Hudson on the mortgage purchased by him from the Citizens' Bank. The chancellor overruled a demurrer to the bill and a motion to dismiss for the want of equity. The demurrer and motion proceeded upon the theory that the complainant had a plain and adequate remedy at law.
It has been recently held by this court that the powers of the chancery court cannot be successfully invoked by one in possession of real estate, holding under a legal title in form, against another who also asserts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dailey v. Koepple
... ... demurrer were well filed. Wilson v. Miller, 143 Ala ... 264, 39 So. 178, 111 Am. St. Rep. 42; Hudson v ... Jackson, 144 Ala. 411, 39 So. 227 ... But it ... is insisted by the appellee (complainant) that the demurrer ... and motion were ... ...
-
Kennedy v. Davis
... ... equitable defenses are not availing, though there are some ... exceptions to this rule. As was said by this court in the ... case of Hudson v. Jackson, 144 Ala. 410, 413, 39 So ... 228: "While it is true that the chancery court will not ... oust the jurisdiction of the law court where ... ...
-
Hardeman v. Donaghey
... ... De Graffenreid, 60 Ala ... 145, and which holds that the bill cannot be maintained by ... one not in possession. The case of Hudson v ... Jackson, 144 Ala. 410, 39 So. 227, relied upon by the ... chancellor, involved a bill filed by a complainant in ... possession. Moreover, ... ...
-
Evans v. Hoye
...26, 91 N.W. 778. See, also, Henwood v. Jarvis, 27 N.J.Eq. 247. The reported case is distinguished in the later case of Hudson v. Jackson, 144 Ala. 410, 39 So. 227, court saying that the ruling of the reported case "was based upon the principle that it is the common right of all men to have ......