Jeffries v. Jeffries

• Decision Date: 26 November 1888
• Citation: 5 So. 112,66 Miss. 216
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: KITTIE A. JEFFRIES ET AL. v. FRANCES A. JEFFRIES

5 So. 112

66 Miss. 216

KITTIE A. JEFFRIES ET AL. v. FRANCES A. JEFFRIES

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 26, 1888

APPEAL from the chancery court of Noxubee county, HON. T. B. GRAHAM Chancellor.

The bill in this cause was filed by Mary A. Stewart, Kittie A Jeffries, and Mary V. Stewart, seeking to enjoin the appellee, Frances A. Jeffries, from selling under execution certain lands which the latter had levied upon under a judgment against Mary A. Stewart. Kittie A. Jeffries and Mary V. Stewart hold the land under conveyance from Mary A Stewart, their mother, which is voluntary in form, and being subsequent to the debt secured by the judgment of appellee is prima facie void as against said judgment. The bill states that while the legal title was in Mary A. Stewart and the conveyance was in form a donation, that Kittie A. Jeffries and Mary V. Stewart were the equitable owners of the land that Mary A. Stewart held only the naked legal title, whereas the lands were acquired by her by the investment of certain funds belonging to the said Kittie A. and Mary V.

After the cause had been set down for final hearing upon the bill, answer and proofs, and after argument, the chancellor intimated that by reason of a variance between the allegations of the bill and the evidence, he would dissolve the injunction as to the lands claimed by Kittie A. Jeffries and Mary V. Stewart under the conveyance from Mary A. Stewart, and dismiss the bill as to them without prejudice. These complainants thereupon moved that the case be remanded to rules, and that they be allowed to amend their bill by making it conform to the evidence. This motion was denied and the bill dismissed as to Kittie A. Jeffries and Mary V. Stewart, without prejudice.

The further facts appear in the opinion of the court.

Decree reversed and cause remanded.

Bogle & Bogle, for appellants and cross-appellees.

The variance between the allegations of the bill and the evidence was insignificant and wholly immaterial. The real gravamen of the bill, the essential equity upon which it is bottomed, is the alleged equitable interest of the appellants in the land prior to the deeds to them, and prior to the judgment against Mary A. Stewart. The latter in making the deeds to appellants was only doing what a court of equity would require her to do, and therefore the lands were not liable to the judgment against Mary A. Stewart. The variance was immaterial--it is in the details only--in the statement of one of the links of the chain of title, and not in the nature and condition of the title at the time the alleged rights of appellee accrued. The relief prayed for was proper under the proof. But even if the variance was material, the amendment should have been allowed, as it did not seek to change the nature of the controversy.

Rives & Rives, for appellee and cross-appellant.

Complainants were too late in asking for leave to amend their bill. The cause had been submitted not only on motion to dissolve but on final hearing by consent, of all parties.

The amendment would have introduced new and independent matter as grounds of relief. That matter was certainly known to complainants when they filed the original bill. Mrs. Stewart, one of the complainants, and mother of the other complainants, made the application of the funds and knew how they were applied. To have permitted the amendment at that late time would have been placing a premium upon negligence and lathes. Walker v. Brown, 45 Miss. 618. Besides, the amendment would have changed the frame and essential character of the bill. Miazza v. Yerger, 53 Miss. 136; Wright v. Frank, 61 Miss. 32.

OPINION

COOPER, J.

The real controversy between the complainants, Kittie A. Jeffries and Mary A. Stewart and the defendant, Frances A. Jeffries, is this:

These complainants hold under conveyances from Mary A. Stewart, the judgment debtor of Frances A. Jeffries, which are prima facie voluntary, wherefore the lands conveyed to them are subject to be sold for the payment of her judgment against the grantor. The complainants charge however, that only the legal title was in the grantor, and that the beneficial or equitable interest was in them before the conveyance. Stating the history of their right, they say that James A. Stewart, their father, died testate, devising and bequeathing his estate in equal parts to his widow, Mary A. Stewart, and his children, but giving her power to sell any property of the estate and to change its form from time to time as she might deem best for the interest of all parties; that as the children came of age she was directed or requested to portion them with such parts of...