King v. McAnnally, 4 Div. 917

• Decision Date: 28 June 1937
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 917
• Citation: 175 So. 546,234 Ala. 479
• Parties: KING et al. v. McANNALLY.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

175 So. 546

234 Ala. 479

KING et al. v. McANNALLY.

4 Div. 917

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 28, 1937

Appeal from Circuit Court, Crenshaw County; A.E. Gamble, Judge.

Suit by A.C. McAnnally, by his next friend, Lucille McAnnally Williams, against S.P. King, F.C. Sherrod, and others. From a decree overruling a demurrer to an amended bill, named respondents appeal.

Affirmed.

Robt. E. Smith and Robt. W. Smith, both of Birmingham, for appellants.

Sentell & Sentell, of Luverne, for appellee.

BOULDIN Justice.

In view of evident uncertainty in the minds of the bar and trial courts touching amendments to bills in equity allowable under present statutes, without working a departure from the original bill, this court in Garrett v. First National Bank of Montgomery, 233 Ala. 467, 172 So. 611, 617 reviewed our cases and laid down the following controlling principles: "An amendment does not depart from the purpose of the original bill if it seeks to adjudicate property rights in the same property between the same parties. This is the obvious effect of Code, § 6526. Amendments presenting a different version of the facts calling for application of different legal principles, and molding of relief in different form, are not objectionable so long as the ultimate objective is sought--a decree declaring the equities of the same parties in the same properties growing out of the same transaction."

In the case before us, the original bill filed by the vendor, sought to rescind and cancel a deed to lands on the ground of fraud in the procurement of the deed, offering to do equity by a return of the purchase money received.

In the alternative, and in the event the deed was held valid, the bill sought the foreclosure of a vendor's lien for an unpaid balance of the purchase money.

The amended bill proceeds on the ground of insanity of the vendor at the time the deed was executed, and seeks to declare and enforce a lien under section 6822 of the Code, which reads "Whenever any person shall in good faith, and for a valuable consideration, purchase real estate from an insane person, without notice of such insanity, such contract and conveyance shall not be void, but such insane person may recover from the vendee or those claiming under him, the difference between the market value of such real estate at the time of the sale and the price paid therefor, with interest thereon, and shall have a lien on such real estate to secure the same, and the purchasers from such vendee without notice of the insanity of the original vendor, shall be protected in like manner and...