Littleton v. Littleton, 5 Div. 277.

• Decision Date: 20 April 1939
• Docket Number: 5 Div. 277.
• Citation: 188 So. 902,238 Ala. 40
• Parties: LITTLETON et al. v. LITTLETON et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

188 So. 902

238 Ala. 40

LITTLETON et al. v. LITTLETON et al.

5 Div. 277.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 20, 1939

Rehearing Denied May 25, 1935.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Chilton County; Arthur Glover, Judge.

Bill in equity by Dollie Littleton and others against S.W. Littleton and others. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill respondents appeal.

Affirmed.

Lawrence F. Gerald and J.B. Atkinson, both of Clanton, for appellants.

Reynolds & Reynolds, of Clanton, for appellees.

GARDNER Justice.

The appeal is from a decree overruling demurrer to the original bill as amended.

The only grounds of demurrer here argued relate to the question of multifariousness. We think they were properly overruled.

As often observed, no universal rule in regard to multifariousness is admitted to be established to cover all possible cases. The objection relates largely to a matter of discretion, and every case must in a measure be governed by what is convenient and equitable under its peculiar facts subject to the recognized principles of equity jurisprudence. "It is, therefore, always proper to exercise this discretion in such a manner as to discourage future litigation and prevent multiplicity of suits, and never so as to do plain violence to the maxim that 'courts of equity "delight to do justice, and not by halves." ' " City of Marion v. Underwood, 231 Ala. 225, 164 So 296; O'Neal v. Cooper, 191 Ala. 182, 67 So. 689.

It is not necessary that all parties to the bill should have an interest in all the matters in controversy, but it is sufficient if each defendant has an interest in some of the matters involved, and they are connected with the others. Henry v. Ide, 208 Ala. 33, 93 So. 860.

The purpose of the present bill is single--the reclamation of the estate of W.L. Littleton, deceased, for administration and distribution, somewhat akin to that considered in Hale v. Cox, 233 Ala. 573, 173 So. 82; Long v. Long, 195 Ala. 560, 70 So. 733, and Garrett v. First National Bank, 233 Ala. 467, 172 So. 611.

As to defendant S.W. Littleton, it is clear enough the objection of multifariousness is not well taken. He is charged with having taken advantage of the infirmities of age and physical and mental weakness of W.L. Littleton, and by undue influence having procured a deed to the latter's real estate, and a bill of sale to his personalty as well as the execution of a will, all a part of one transaction, and somewhat related to the charges involved in Pool v. Menefee, 205 Ala. 531, 88 So. 654.

Among the personalty alleged to have been acquired by defendant S.W. Littleton was a large sum of money, some of which was loaned by him to defendants L.H. Lowery and C.D. Collins, secured by notes and mortgages made to W.L. Littleton, each of which notes is past due and unpaid. The mortgages embraced real estate, and the bill seeks their collection by foreclosure.

These mortgagors likewise object to the bill as multifarious, and we are cited to Stamey v. Fortner, 230 Ala. 204, 160 So. 116, and Webb v. Butler, 192 Ala. 287, 68 So 369, Ann.Cas.1916D, 815, to which may be added Lee v....