Johnson v. Chamblee

• Decision Date: 06 February 1919
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 861
• Citation: 81 So. 27,202 Ala. 525
• Parties: JOHNSON v. CHAMBLEE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

81 So. 27

202 Ala. 525

JOHNSON v. CHAMBLEE.

6 Div. 861

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 6, 1919

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cullman County; Robert C. Brickell Judge.

Suit by Robert Chamblee against H.E. Johnson. From decree overruling demurrer to the amended bill, respondent appeals. Affirmed.

Emil Ahlrichs, of Cullman, for appellant.

F.E St. John, of Cullman, for appellee.

MAYFIELD J.

The case made by the bill in this cause is no better than the case made by the bill in the case of Gardner v Knight, 124 Ala. 273, 27 So. 298, in which it was decided that the bill was wholly without equity to cancel the deed, to specifically perform, or to enforce a vendor's lien, or to reform a deed.

The material facts in the two cases are of course not identical, but, for the purpose of giving equity to a bill, they may be treated as the same. If any difference, that difference was in favor of the equity of the bill in the case of Gardner v. Knight, 124 Ala. 273, 27 So. 298. There confidential relations were shown, the deed was from a very aged and blind father to his daughter, and the father was induced to convey by the daughter and her husband, who were the dominant parties to the conveyance, and he was to be cared for by his own folks, and not by strangers, as in this case, in which no such ties or relation are alleged. Undue influence and fraud were both alleged in that case, as in this, as having procured the deed, and there was no intention on the part of either the daughter or husband to perform at the time the deed was procured, and that the grantor would be homeless unless relief was given as prayed. Notwithstanding all these facts, this court held the bill to be without equity, and that it was properly dismissed, because incapable of being amended so as to give it equity. In that case it is said, among other things:

"Whatever was the intention of Knight and his wife in respect to providing for the grantor, etc., he received from the former his legal and binding obligation to provide for him; and this was the consideration for which he conveyed the land; this was what he stipulated for in the instrument itself. And whether this was an adequate or excessive consideration for the property was necessarily a matter of opinion. As W.A. Gardner received the obligation for which he contracted, the fact that the obligor did not intend to carry it out affords no ground for canceling the conveyance; the obligee had his plain and adequate remedy whereby to realize upon the obligation, whatever may have been the obligor's intention as to performance vel non. Nor did the false expression of opinion as to the adequacy of the consideration by Knight and his wife arm the grantor with the right to cancellation; it not appearing that he was without sufficient mental capacity to contract. ***

"All the facts set forth in the bill are sufficiently pleaded in a sense, the objection to the bill is not that its statements of the facts relied on are insufficient, but that the facts themselves, however clearly and fully stated, cannot be made the basis of relief. In such case there is no occasion to put the respondents to a demurrer rather than a motion to dismiss for want of equity on the idea that the complainant should be allowed an opportunity to amend his bill."

This decision has never been overruled. It was followed in the case of Borroughs v. Borroughs, 164 Ala. 329, 50 So. 1025, 28 L.R.A. (N.S.) 607, 137 Am.St.Rep. 59, 20 Ann.Cas. 926, to the extent only of holding that a bill alleging similar facts would not authorize a bill to enforce a vendor's lien. It was cited in the case of Brindly v. Brindly, 197 Ala. 221, 72 So. 497. It was referred to, but distinguished, in the case of Seaboard v. Anniston Co., 186 Ala. 264, 279, 65 So. 187. The last-mentioned case, however, was not a case in which the grantor conveyed in consideration of support and maintenance during his life. The consideration of the conveyance there held to be on a condition subsequent was to construct a railroad on the premises.

It was also distinguished in the case of Bank of New Blocton v. McIntosh, 79 So. 121, L.R.A.1918F, 353, and many authorities reviewed. It was, however, a case very similar to the facts in Gardner v. Knight, 124 Ala. 273, 27 So. 253. The latter case was there distinguished, and not overruled, and relief was granted to the grantor by canceling the conveyance, though the grantor had executed a mortgage on the premises before the filing of the bill to cancel. The relief was granted in the latter case upon the theory that the conveyance contained a condition subsequent, which was held not to be the case in Gardner v. Knight, 124 Ala. 273, 27 So. 298.

It was distinguished also in the case of Woodley v. Woodley, 79 So. 134. There a father had conveyed to the son on condition to support, but not on consideration of support and maintenance, but for a part of the crops to be grown thereon, and mortgaged back to the grantor to secure the purchase price. This was held to constitute a condition subsequent, and to warrant relief by a cancellation of the conveyance. In this last case three of the justices dissented from the conclusions of the majority, and Justice McClellan wrote a dissenting opinion and reviewed the authorities in this and other states on the subject.

The case of Gardner v. Knight, 124 Ala. 273, 27 So. 298, has been comparatively recently followed by the Supreme Court of Mississippi, denying all equitable relief where the consideration of the conveyance was to support and maintain the grantor during his life. The Mississippi case may be found reported in Dixon v. Milling et al., 102 Miss. 449, 59 So. 804, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 916. In a note to this report is collected many, if not all, the authorities on this subject.

While there is a difference of opinion among the justices on this court as to when the consideration for a conveyance can be held to be a condition subsequent and when not, there is no difference of opinion that the facts in the case now under consideration do not make as strong a case for equitable relief as did the facts in the case of Gardner v. Knight, 124 Ala. 273, 27 So. 298.

After a careful re-examination of the case of Gardner v. Knight, 124 Ala. 273, 27 So. 298, we are of the opinion that it is grounded in error, and should be overruled in so far as it decided that a bill like the one there under consideration contained no equity to cancel and annul a deed, the execution of which was obtained in the manner recited in that bill.

There are two basic errors in the opinion. The first is in holding that the grantor in such cases has a complete and adequate remedy at law. He has a remedy at law, of course, but it is neither complete nor adequate.

One stripped of his home, and his all, by undue influence, deceit, and the fraud of another ought to have immediate and affirmative relief by a court of equity, by being restored as near as may be to his former condition, and given back his home. He ought not to be left to the cold charities of the world, and the fraud of his grantees, and remitted to an action at law to recover damages which may not be recovered until he is dead. Pecuniary damages cannot compensate a man or woman for his or her home and the care of those whom they love in their declining years.

Contracts of the kind here under consideration, and such as the one in Gardner v. Knight, 124 Ala. 273, 27 So. 298, are usually made by old and feeble people with their children, relatives, or friends, and with whom they desire to spend the remaining days of their life. The compensation the grantor is to receive is support, comfort, and happiness, and to be relieved of the care and responsibility of attending to the property. This cannot be estimated or valued in money. They convey away their property in consideration that their future necessities, in the last days of their life, are to be fully provided for. In such contracts there are elements of faith, hope, and confidence which are breached and abused, which courts of equity should relieve against, and refuse to be bound by technical rules of law. Such contracts are often prompted by necessity, and generally by confidence, and when one of the parties refuses to perform, and through deceit acquires the property of the other, he ought not to be allowed to retain the benefit when he refuses to bear the burden.

The consideration for the conveyance is not wholly pecuniary. Its monetary value cannot be easily ascertained; certainly not by a jury. The value of the land may be ascertained, but not the value of the consideration to be received by the grantor, nor of the services to be performed by the grantee or the third party. The nature and character of the services are such that a court cannot specifically enforce performance.

It is held by this court in the case of Burroughs v. Burroughs, 164 Ala. 329, 50 So. 1025, 28 L.R.A. (N.S.) 607, 137 Am.St.Rep. 59, 20 Ann.Cas. 926, that no vendor's lien arises or is enforceable, because no definite, ascertained, absolute debt, and the consideration is a mere uncertain and indefinite contingent demand.

This being true, it is difficult to see how an action in a court of law on the undertaking or covenant to support the grantor during life would be complete or adequate; and, if the grantee or covenantor be insolvent, then the action at law would be wholly worthless. Those who committed the fraud and the wrong upon the old, feeble, and confiding grantor can enjoy the fruits of their fraud, without having the burdens or responding in damages. Such a result ought not to be allowed or tolerated. The justice of the case ought to be the law of it.

The great number and weight of American and English authorities are against...