Martin v. Berry

• Decision Date: 16 June 1897
• Citation: 22 So. 493,116 Ala. 233
• Parties: MARTIN ET AL. v. BERRY ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

22 So. 493

116 Ala. 233

MARTIN ET AL. v. BERRY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 16, 1897

Appeal from chancery court, Colbert county; William H. Simpson Chancellor.

Bill by Berry, Demoville & Co. against James R. Martin and others to set aside a deed. From a decree in favor of complainants respondents appeal. Affirmed.

On February 12, 1891, J. R. Martin executed two notes for $113.62 each, payable, with interest to E. E. Martin, in three and six months after date, which notes said Martin, on the same day, for a valuable consideration, assigned to the appellee. On May 15, 1891, the first note matured, and was not paid. It was duly protested, and the maker, J. R. Martin notified. On July 10th, J. R. Martin executed a quitclaim deed to James W. Williams, his stepfather, for a recited consideration of $1,000, conveying all his (Martin's) interest in the real estate belonging to the estate of Mary Alice Williams, deceased (Martin's mother and Williams' wife). On August 15, 1891, the second note matured, was not paid, and was duly protested, and the maker J. R. Martin, notified. On August 17, 1891, complainants (appellees) instituted suit in the district court of Colbert county on said notes, and on the 9th day of November, 1891, recovered judgment against J. R. Martin for the sum of $270 debt, and the further sum of $14.10 costs, and a certificate of said judgment was on the same day recorded in the office of the probate judge of Colbert county, Ala. On November 9, 1891, the appellees filed the original bill in this case, alleging that the transfer by J. R. Martin of all his interest in the real estate belonging to the late Mary Alice Williams was made for the purpose of hindering, delaying, and defrauding the appellees, and was without consideration; and that the defendant James W. Williams was estopped by his acts and declarations from claiming title to the land; and praying that said conveyance be set aside and annulled as fraudulent and void as against complainants. The other facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Upon the final submission of the cause on the pleadings and proof, the chancellor was of the opinion that the complainants were entitled to the relief prayed for, and rendered a decree declaring the deed of conveyance from Martin to Williams void, and ordering it set aside and annulled. From this decree the respondents appeal, and assign the rendition thereof as error.

Wm. Richardson and R. W. Walker, for appellants.

Kirk & Almon, for appellees.

McCLELLAN J.

The burden was on Williams,-it being alleged and proved that complainants' debt against Martin antedated the conveyance of the latter to him, and that Martin was insolvent to the knowledge of Williams,-to both aver in his answer and prove by clear and convincing evidence a valuable and adequate consideration passing from him to Martin for the land, in what it consisted, and how it was paid. Robinson v. Moseley, 93 Ala. 70, 9 So. 372. In recognition and attempted discharge of this burden, so far as averment is concerned, Williams set up in his answer that at the time of the conveyance to him he had no knowledge or notice of Martin's indebtedness to the complainants; that Martin was then-July 10, 1891-indebted to him on a decree rendered by the probate court in the sum, principal and interest, of $467.17, the decree without interest being for $383.43; that he was not at Tuscumbia, the county seat, when he purchased the land, and hence did not know the precise amount of the decree, "but that he agreed to give him a very liberal price for the land, and...