Johnson v. Stephens, 5 Div. 328.
| Decision Date | 16 January 1941 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 328. |
| Citation | 199 So. 828,240 Ala. 419 |
| Parties | JOHNSON ET AL. v. STEPHENS ET AL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Chambers County; W. B. Bowling, Judge.
Suit in equity by Ella Johnson and others against Orrie Stephens and others to have a tax sale declared fraudulent and sell land for division. From a decree sustaining a demurrer to the bill, complainants appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
Chas E. Fuller, Jr., of Lafayette, and Morrow & Bruce, of West Point, Ga., for appellants.
E Herndon Glenn, of Opelika, and Leon L. Meadors and P. T Hipp, both of La Grange, Ga., for appellees.
The widow and some of the heirs of W. F. Johnson, Sr., file this bill to have a tax sale of the land declared to have been caused by him to one of his sons, W. F. Johnson, Jr., with the intent to defraud the widow, then his wife, in respect to a claim then made by her for alimony in a pending suit, as well as a fraud upon the other children as his heirs at law and to have the land sold for division as belonging to all his heirs, including the widow's dower right.
The only question here involved is whether the bill is barred by limitations or laches as shown on its face.
Insofar as they are concerned, the heirs of W. F. Johnson, Sr., have no standing at all in respect to the claim of fraud. The children of a land owner have no such interest in his land as to be injured by his dealings in respect to it effective during his life, such as were binding on him. Dearman v. Radcliffe, 5 Ala. 192; 16 Amer.Jur. 799, section 33; 12 R.C.L. 611.
But his wife has a different status toward it, in respect to her dower. The bill does not allege that the transaction was an attempt to cut off her dower nor by express terms that such was its effect, but it alleges that it was intended to defraud her in respect to her alimony claim. No allegation is made that alimony was ever decreed her, nor the result of the litigation for divorce and alimony, other than the allegation that she continued to be his wife until his death. She is not therefore now in the attitude of a defrauded creditor. If she has any standing in court it is to enforce her dower rights. If the alleged tax sale was collusive, it did not serve to cut off her dower, and the purchaser at that tax sale will in equity be treated as a voluntary alienee of her husband under the influence of section 7450, Code. And she may have a dower right (not now decided), even though the tax sale was not collusive. Whether a tax sale of the land of her husband bars her right to dower has had much consideration by the courts. Many of them hold that if the tax sale statute provides for a sale of the right, title and interest of the husband, as our statute (Rev.Act of 1919, section 266; Gen.Acts of 1919, page 360, see, Gen.Acts 1933, Ex.Sess., page 130), the dower rights of the widow are not affected (19 Corpus Juris 521, section 177, note 98; 75 A.L.R. 430; 17 Amer.Jur. 745, notes 20-1), notwithstanding the revenue act, such as our (see Act of 1919, section 416, page 449) provides that the tax lien shall be superior to all other liens, since the inchoate right to dower is said not to be a lien. 75 A.L.R. 432: see case cited there of Shell v. Duncan, 31 S.C. 547, 10 S.E. 330, 5 L.R.A. 821. It is not necessary here to pass on that question, and we do not find where it has been done by this Court.
A bill of this sort could well be framed to carve out her dower rights notwithstanding the sale alleged to have been in form a tax sale, which by collusion with the purchaser, was to defraud her of her rights either to support in his lifetime or to dower after his death. Such a bill is not barred within three years after the death of her husband. Section 7450, Code.
The only ground of demurrer which the court sustained related to the bar of limitations. This ruling did not take into consideration the nature of the widow's rights and the effect of section 7450, Code.
Status of the Heirs.
We will observe, though not involved in the court's ruling, that neither W. F. Johnson, Sr., in his lifetime, nor his heirs at law after...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mudd v. Lanier
... ... 363 MUDD et al. v. LANIER et al. 6 Div. 363. Supreme Court of Alabama November 1, 1945 ... $5,250 as the bonus to the estate of decedent. On all those ... alleged fraud in dealing with it. Johnson v ... Stephens, 240 Ala. [247 Ala. 376] 419, 199 So ... ...
-
In re Washington
...a tax purchaser's ejectment action, but also to re-vest legal title in the land owner. Reese, 523 So.2d at 400. In Johnson v. Stephens, 240 Ala. 419, 199 So. 828 (1941), a father lost legal title to property through a 1931 tax sale and 1933 tax deed delivery but retained exclusive and adver......
-
Rioprop Holdings, LLC v. Compass Bank
...title in the taxpayer/landowner and protect him from any action brought by the tax purchaser to recover the property. Johnson v. Stephens, 240 Ala. 419, 199 So. 828 (1941) ; and Sherrill v. Sandlin, 232 Ala. 389, 168 So. 426 (1936)." 523 So.2d at 400 (footnotes omitted; emphasis added). In ......
-
Reese v. Robinson
...title in the taxpayer/landowner and protect him from any action brought by the tax purchaser to recover the property. Johnson v. Stephens, 240 Ala. 419, 199 So. 828 (1941); and Sherrill v. Sandlin, 232 Ala. 389, 168 So. 426 In order for Robinson to obtain Rule 60(b) relief, she must allege ......