Leonard v. Duncan
| Decision Date | 02 March 1944 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 177. |
| Citation | 245 Ala. 320,16 So.2d 879 |
| Parties | LEONARD v. DUNCAN. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Edw. T. Rice, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Barber & Barber, of Birmingham, for appellee.
Bill to declare an absolute deed an equitable mortgage, or a trust in the nature thereof; to have an accounting as to the state of the mortgage debt, and to divest title if fully paid otherwise to redeem.
Briefly the case by the bill is this: Prior to the 15th day of May 1936, complainant owned a house and lot, described in the bill, located in the City of Birmingham, Alabama, which had been sold to the City of Birmingham to satisfy certain public improvement assessment liens. On May 15, 1936, complainant sought a loan from respondent sufficient to redeem the house and lot from the public improvement assessment sale, and also from a sale to the State of Alabama to satisfy state, county and city ad valorem taxes. Complainant proposed to respondent that if he would make the loan and redeem the property she would execute and deliver to him a mortgage on the house and lot to secure the payment of the amounts so loaned, and would permit the respondent to collect and keep the rents from the property until he had been paid in full for the amounts loaned with interest, and all amounts paid for insurance and other just charges, including a reasonable fee for his services. Respondent agreed to advance and loan to complainant sufficient money to pay off said indebtedness and agreed that he would effectuate a redemption for and on behalf of complainant and would reimburse himself for the sums so advanced or loaned out of the rents from the property, but advised complainant that the mortgage mentioned could be executed and delivered at some later time. In pursuance of said agreement the respondent did, on to-wit the 30th day of July, 1936, pay to the City of Birmingham and to the State of Alabama the amounts necessary to redeem or purchase the said house and lot described, but instead of purchasing or redeeming said property in the name of complainant, took from the City of Birmingham a deed thereto in his own name, and took from the State a certificate of redemption in his own name. On or about July 1, 1937, complainant inquired of respondent concerning the status of the account between them, and whether the rents collected had reimbursed him for the amounts advanced or loaned. Respondent then advised complainant that he had purchased the house and lot from the City of Birmingham and then owned the same in his own right, and that complainant had no right, title or interest therein. This suit was commenced on February 20, 1943.
Demurrers to the bill were overruled, and respondent appealed.
Appellant insists that the bill of complaint shows on its face that at the time he redeemed or purchased the property from the City of Birmingham, complainant had no right, title or interest in or to the property, her statutory right of redemption having expired. In other words, complainant had nothing to mortgage.
We will assume, without deciding, that the bill does so show. Very clearly, the bill alleges that respondent agreed to loan to complainant an amount sufficient to redeem or purchase the property from the city, and agreed to effectuate said redemption for and on behalf of complainant; and that in pursuance of said agreement, the respondent did redeem or purchase the same. The allegations of the bill are to the effect that the money of complainant, loaned...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sykes v. Sykes, 6 Div. 393
...for the purchase of lands intends the purchase for his own benefit. Miles v. Rhodes, 222 Ala. 208, 131 So. 633.' Leonard v. Duncan, 245 Ala. 320, 322, 16 So.2d 879, 881. It is true that where a husband or parent pays the purchase price for land and causes title thereto to be taken in the na......
-
Woods v. Sanders
...219 Ala. 419, 122 So. 645; Gunter v. Jones, 244 Ala. 251, 13 So.2d 51; O'Rear v. O'Rear, 220 Ala. 85, 123 So. 895; Leonard v. Duncan, 245 Ala. 320, 16 So.2d 879. ground of demurrer, which was evidently thought to be good, was one which goes to the statute of limitations. It is well understo......
-
Henderson Baker Lumber Co. v. Headley
... ... Still more recent decisions ... re-affirm the doctrine there recognized. Gunter v ... Jones, 244 Ala. 251, 13 So.2d 51; Leonard v ... Duncan, 245 Ala. 320, 16 So.2d 879. These authorities ... are to the effect that to invoke this equitable principle and ... to have a deed ... ...
-
Smith v. Hart, 6 Div. 300
...on which it must stand. Upchurch v. Goodroe, 242 Ala. 395(5), 6 So.2d 869; Gandy v. Hagler, 245 Ala. 167, 16 So.2d 305; Leonard v. Duncan, 245 Ala. 320, 16 So.2d 879; Young v. Greer, 250 Ala. 641, 35 So.2d 619; Adams v. Griffin, 253 Ala. 371, 45 So.2d 22. When a parent makes a purchase, fur......