Loring v. Grummon

• Decision Date: 09 January 1912
• Citation: 57 So. 818,176 Ala. 236
• Parties: LORING v. GRUMMON ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

57 So. 818

176 Ala. 236

LORING v. GRUMMON ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 9, 1912

Rehearing Denied Feb. 15, 1912.

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

Suit by Mary A. Loring against Sidnia Shannon Grummon and others, as heirs of Charles A. Loring, to annul deeds and to have her title to land therein conveyed recognized and affirmed. From a decree for defendants, complainant appeals. Affirmed.

See also, 57 So. 819.

Boykin & Bailey and A. G. Levy, for appellant.

Howard & Hunt, for appellees.

ANDERSON J.

Chas A. Loring purchased the property involved from J. F. Caldwell August 8th, in the year 1890, and got deeds conveying title to himself. On December 24, 1891, Chas. A Loring and wife, this complainant, made a deed to Samuel L. Grogan. On the same day December 24, 1891, the said Grogan made a deed conveying said property to Chas. A. Loring as trustee for his wife, and as he was a naked trustee, she took the legal title, in the event said deed was legally executed. On the same day, December 24, 1891, Chas. A. Loring, as trustee, and Chas. A. Loring and Mary A. Loring made a deed to said property to Thomas B. Davenport. This deed was not filed for record until February 7, 1905. On February 3, 1905, Davenport conveyed the property to Chas. A. Loring. The complainant attacks the deed made by herself and husband to Davenport, and the bill proceeds upon the theory: (1) That complainant purchased the property through her husband with her own funds; (2) That her husband, Chas. A. Loring, through fraud, caused her to sign or execute a deed conveying said property to Thos. B. Davenport, who subsequently conveyed to Chas. A. Loring. Regardless of the burden of proof, the evidence fails to establish either averment. Aside from her own statement as to having $15,000 in gold in her name when she married Loring, the evidence shows that the complainant was in reduced circumstances, and refutes her earning capacity in art as a painter, or that she earned anything taking boarders until after the property was purchased. The proof is also clear and positive that the deed to Davenport was signed as it then and now existed; that she was familiar with it and all facts leading up to the execution of same; that she knew that her husband was merely endeavoring to get the record title into her for a certain purpose, but contemporaneously with the deed to her had her to execute the Davenport deed. On the other hand, if the Davenport deed was a nullity and never delivered, the record shows with an equal degree of certainty that the deed from Chas. A. Loring to Grogan was not delivered. So, if the subsequent deeds or any...