Manning v. Manning

• Decision Date: 05 June 1919
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 182
• Citation: 82 So. 436,203 Ala. 186
• Parties: MANNING v. MANNING.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

82 So. 436

203 Ala. 186

MANNING v. MANNING.

8 Div. 182

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 5, 1919

Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; Robert C. Brickell Judge.

Bill to quiet title by R.A. Manning against W.D. Manning. From a decree sustaining demurrer to the cross-bill, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

James D. Giles, of Gadsden, and Cooper & Cooper, of Hunstville, for appellant.

R.E Smith, of Huntsville, for appellee.

McCLELLAN J.

Appeal from a decree sustaining cross-respondent's (original complainant's) demurrer to the cross-bill by the appellant. The theory of the original bill is to invoke the statutory system (Code, § 5443) for quieting title, claims etc., to land. It might be perfected in the further progress of the cause, as indicated in Pace v. Robertson Banking Co., 80 So. 425.

The original bill sets forth the source of complainant's (appellee's) title to the land in question, viz., through purchase of the fee from the American Freehold Land Mortgage Company, and calls upon the defendant (appellant) to propound his claim, etc. The answer of the defendant constituting a cross-bill, avers that he and the complainant together bought the land; that defendant paid one-half of the purchase money except the sum of $62.50, which was paid or to be paid by the complainant; that it was agreed between them that the land should be equally divided, and the area each should have was agreed upon; that by and consistent with this agreement the title to the whole was taken in the name of the complainant, this to carry into effect the further engagement between them that the complainant should have "rents, use and enjoyment" of the half allotted by the agreement to respondent (cross-complainant) until the sum of $62.50 was paid; and that the complainant should account to the cross-complainant for proceeds of the rental or use in excess of the sum of $62.50 due from cross-complainant to the cross-respondent, less the taxes paid on this part of the land by the cross-respondent, the original complainant. The cross-bill prays the establishment of the cross-complainant's rights under the agreement stated; the enforcement and confirmation of the agreed partition, including the investment of the cross-complainant with the title to his half of the land; and an accounting between the parties. The demurrer to the cross-bill proceeded on the theory that the relief sought through the cross-bill could be had as well under the original bill--a statutory bill, to repeat, to quiet the original complainant's title.

A cross-bill will not be entertained where the party filing it can obtain full relief in the process of adjudicating the issues tendered by an original bill. Haralson v Whitcomb, 75 So. 913, 914. That rule is not applicable to this cross-bill. The statutory answer to a statutory bill to quiet title (Code, §§ 5443-5445)...