Joiner v. Watkins

• Decision Date: 13 November 1913
• Docket Number: 683
• Citation: 186 Ala. 211,65 So. 135
• Parties: JOINER v. WATKINS et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

65 So. 135

186 Ala. 211

JOINER v. WATKINS et al.

No. 683

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 13, 1913

Rehearing Denied May 14, 1914

Appeal from Chancery Court, Morgan County; W.H. Simpson, Chancellor.

Bill by Martha L. Joiner against James T. Watkins and others to cancel a mortgage as cloud on title, or, in the alternative to declare a deed, absolute in form, a mortgage, and for redemption. Plea for respondents, and complainant appeals. Affirmed.

The facts made by the bill are: That in November, 1906, Rube Grizzard became indebted to the respondent Watkins in an amount which was due and payable in October, 1907; the same being given to secure the purchase price of a mule, with interest. This was secured by a mortgage on appellant's land which was signed by Grizzard, Martha L. Joiner, and her husband, Elisha Joiner; the last two signing by mark. That some time prior to September, 1909, Watkins began to insist and demand the payment of this mortgage debt, and on September 17, 1909, a deed was executed by Martha Joiner and her husband to Watkins for a recited consideration of $264. That Watkins only paid her $50 in cash; the balance of the consideration being supposed to be the amount due on the Grizzard mortgage, the said Watkins accepting the deed in settlement of the Grizzard mortgage, and paying the additional cash for appellant. That on December 28, 1910 Watkins conveyed this land by warranty deed to S.U. Lemmonds one of the respondents, for the sum of $850. The bill then alleges: That the complainant was an old, illiterate woman unable to read or write, and with no business experience. That her husband was dead. That he was about 100 years old when he died, was unable to read or write, and for 10 years prior to his death was very feeble, and unable to transact any business. That Watkins was a brother of complainant, was an active, experienced business man, and had, to some extent, looked after appellant's business. That appellant had remained in possession of and dwelt upon this land continuously from the time she executed the deed up to the present time. The facts were in dispute.

Tidwell & Sample, of New Decatur, for appellant.

Callahan & Harris, of Decatur, for appellees.

MAYFIELD J.

Appellant filed her bill to have a certain mortgage canceled as a cloud on title, and prayed, in the alternative, that a certain deed, absolute in form, be declared to be a mortgage, and that a redemption...