Hughes v. Dempsey
| Decision Date | 03 May 1923 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 472. |
| Citation | 96 So. 435,209 Ala. 375 |
| Parties | HUGHES v. DEMPSEY ET AL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Franklin County; Charles P. Almon, Judge.
Bill by Grady Hughes, by his next friend, John Hughes, against John Dempsey and Sid Berry. From a decree denying relief complainant appeals. Affirmed.
William L. Chenault, of Russellville, for appellant.
Travis Williams, of Russellville, for appellees.
In favor of bona fide purchasers for value, section 3347 of the Code of 1907 very plainly declares that purchases of real estate from insane persons shall not be void, and then declares the extent and effect of the change thereby wrought in the rule of nullity which prevailed in such cases at the common law as interpreted in this state. Dougherty v Powe, 127 Ala. 577, 30 So. 524. The effect of the section is, in favor of bona fide purchasers for value and their vendees without notice, to confer validity upon titles derived from insane persons, and to give to such persons a lien to the extent of the difference between the price received and the market value of the real estate, so that, if the insane grantor achieves the market value for his land the transaction stands as if it had been negotiated between competent persons. This is the whole effect of the statute as, substantially, was held in Hale v. Hale, 201 Ala. 28, 75 So. 150. And it has been held in several cases that it applies to mortgages as well as deeds. No other meaning can be assigned to the statute, as applied to mortgages, than that the mortgage transaction shall not be void, but the mortgage shall stand as a valid security for the true amount received by the insane mortgagor on the faith of it. This construction of the statute, by which its remedial benefits are conferred upon bona fide mortgagees, does no violence to its language, works justly, and we see no exigent reason why it should not be accepted.
On a bill framed under the statute, with proof of insanity complainant, proceeding by his next friend, might have had relief against the mortgage of which he complains to the extent the debt thereby secured exceeded the market value of the land he bought; but he did not file his bill with that view. His contention is that the mortgagee, and the assignee of the mortgage and the debt thereby secured, had knowledge or notice of his mental disability, and therefore he prays that the mortgage executed by him...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S. v. Welch
...to show any notice chargeable to the defendant of such mental incapacity. Hughes v. Bullen, 209 Ala. 134, 95 So. 379; Hughes v. Dempsey, 209 Ala. 375, 96 So. 435; McDaniel v. Mellen, With this understanding of the rules touching insanity, we should observe, that when a party places a witnes......
-
Holman v. Harper
... ... 6822, Code 1923) was considered in Thomas v. Holden, ... 191 Ala. 142, 67 So. 992, and Hale v. Hale, 201 Ala ... 28, 75 So. 150; Hughes v. Dempsey, 209 Ala. 375, 96 ... Appellee ... argues upon the assumption the cross-bill shows the receipt ... and retention of a valuable ... ...
-
McDaniel v. Mellen
... ... of 1901, now section 6822, Code 1923. Thomas v ... Holden, 191 Ala. 142, 67 So. 992; Hale v. Hale, ... 201 Ala. 28, 75 So. 150; Hughes v. Dempsey, 209 Ala ... 375, 96 So. 435 ... Nor do ... we consider anything said in the opinion of Alexander v ... Livingston, 206 ... ...
-
Livingston v. Livingston
... ... This conclusion ... follows from section 3347 of the Code and our consideration ... of its proper operation and effect (Hughes v ... Dempsey, 209 Ala. 375, 96 So. 435), and is made ... compulsory by section 3348 of the Code, the language of which ... "Except as provided ... ...