Maya Corporation v. Smith
Decision Date | 09 May 1940 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 6. |
Citation | 196 So. 125,239 Ala. 470 |
Parties | MAYA CORPORATION ET AL. v. SMITH ET AL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; A. E. Hawkins, Judge.
Suit in equity by W. L. Smith against the Maya Corporation and others, wherein respondents filed cross-bills. From a decree for complainant, respondents appeal. On appellees' motions to dismiss the appeal, and appellants' motion to revive as against the executor of one of the appellees.
Motion of appellants granted, and motions of appellees overruled.
Cabaniss & Johnston and K. E. Cooper, all of Birmingham, for appellants.
Street Bradford & Street, of Guntersville, for appellees.
This case was submitted on motions that are stated below.
The former appeals of this cause, on the overruling of demurrers to the cross bill of Maya Corporation, are reported as Ex parte Cullinan, 224 Ala. 263, 139 So. 255, 81 A.L.R. 160, and Smith v. Maya Corporation, 227 Ala. 6, 148 So. 621. These former appeals, therefore, were on different phases of the question than the one presently before the court for decision.
The instant suit arose on the bill filed by W. L. Smith against Maya Corporation, the latter owning all of the capital stock of the other corporate respondents. The bill set up an alleged contract bearing date of January 1, 1926, under which the complainant sought to hold the respondents for the purchase of over 250,000 acres of mineral lands in North Alabama at a price of $6 per acre, plus 7,000 shares of the preferred and common capital stock of the corporation which was to take title to said lands.
The respondent Maya Corporation answered the bill, denied there was any such contract, and averred that the asserted contract, consisting of a photostat of a photostat, was spurious and fraudulent. Its answer was made a cross bill and set up what it claimed to be the true contract between the parties, and prayed for relief based thereon.
The final decree denied all relief under the cross bill, found for complainant under the original bill as amended and awarded complainant Smith a judgment against Maya Corporation for the net amount of $1,451,675.91, damages for breach of the alleged contract set up in the original bill.
Margaret H. Hall was not made a party to the original bill; but the respondent corporation made her a party to its cross bill alleging that she was asserting a claim for $5,000 against one or more of the Smith Corporations, and asking that she be enjoined from prosecuting suit on such claim and that she be required in answer to the cross bill to propound such rights as she claimed to have.
Margaret H. Hall did not answer the cross bill and has not asserted any claim against the Smith Corporations or any of the lands in suit. Mrs. Hall filed a petition alleging that complainant W. L. Smith was indebted to her in the principal sum of $15,000 by virtue of a contract, a copy of which is attached to her petition; and prayed that the court ascertain the amount due her under the said contract and that the court declare such amount to be a charge against any recovery in favor of complainant W. L. Smith.
Leo K. Steiner filed a cross bill making Mrs. Hall a party respondent which she answered denying all averments thereof. The averments and prayer of the Steiner cross bill were distinct from the averments and prayer of the Maya Corporation cross bill.
With reference to Mrs. Hall the final decree adjudged that complainant Smith was indebted to her in the sum of $35,933.33, under said contract between Smith and Mrs. Hall and granted her a lien on the judgment decreed in favor of complainant Smith against Maya Corporation. Mrs. Hall was not granted any relief whatever against Maya Corporation or anyone except the complainant Smith. Said final decree was rendered on April 11, 1939. The security for costs of appeal was filed on June 16, 1939, and the date of the death of Mrs. Hall was June 6, 1939.
The register duly issued citations to the appellees, one to O. D. Street "as solicitor of record for Margaret Holmes Hall" and was served by the Sheriff on Mr. Street as such solicitor.
On November 14, 1939, said Mr. Street wrote the letter attached as Exhibit A to the motion for revivor now pending in this court, the last paragraph of which reads as follows: "A ground not set out in the inclosed paper is based on the facts that Margaret Holmes Hall died June 6, 1939; that the appeal was attempted to be taken on June 16, 1939; that no step was taken as to her within the six months allowed for appeal and that it is now too late to appeal as to her."
As set forth in the appellants' motion for revivor, said letter is the first intimation appellants had of the death of Mrs. Hall, and it was seven months after the decree was rendered.
It is further averred that upon making an investigation after receipt of the letter of Mr. Street, informing of Mrs. Hall's death on the date indicated, appellants filed a sworn petition to the register under Section 6112 of the Code, to which petition was attached certified copies of petition for probate of Mrs. Hall's will, decree of probate and letters testamentary issued to Charles C. Hall, as Executor. Among other things, said petition averred:
Thereupon, the register issued citation to Charles C. Hall, as such executor, on December 19, 1939, and such citation was served by the sheriff on December 20, 1939.
The motion to revive against the executor of Mrs. Hall under Section 6147 was filed in the Supreme Court on or about December 21, 1939. Shortly after the filing of said motion to revive, Mr. Street filed motions to dismiss on the ground that the appeal was not properly taken as against the executor of Mrs. Hall, on behalf of Charles C. Hall, as executor, on behalf of the complainant Smith and by Street, Bradford & Street.
This court takes judicial knowledge that the pending motions were set for argument and submission in the Supreme Court on March 21st, and upon request of Mr. Street made in open court the motions were continued to April 11th.
Appellants state that it appears from Mr. Street's brief that the appeal should have been effected (a) against the personal representative of Mrs. Hall's estate by the register making up the parties to the appeal as in the case of the old writ of error proceeding; and (b) that such "making up of the parties" by the Register must be done within the six months' period.
This appeal is purely statutory. Dortch Baking Co. et al. v. Schoel, Ala.Sup., 194 So. 807.
This appeal is governed by Section 6101(b) of Michie's Code as to taking the appeal; and by Sections 6112 and 6140 as to giving notices of the appeal. Said sections read, respectively, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Seamon v. Tatum
... ... to proceed to execute the decree appealed from or to sell the ... lands in dispute. Maya Corporation v. Smith, 239 ... Ala. 470, 474, 196 So. 125; Bell v. King, 210 Ala ... 557, 98 So ... ...
-
Collier v. State ex rel. Powell, 8 Div. 76.
... ... over the fund and discharge trustee pending appeal, and such ... was denied. In Maya Corp. v. Smith, 239 Ala. 470, ... 196 So. 125, the appeal was to be effected by notice and it ... ...
-
McCulley v. Stroud
...tendered to the clerk and approved by him, when it was filed, jurisdiction of this court attached as of that date, Maya Corporation v. Smith, 239 Ala. 470, 196 So. 125. Appellee Stroud's motion, attacking the sufficiency of the appeal bond, is therefore This is an action at law and under Ti......
-
Parker v. Bedwell
... ... though notice had not been given. Austin v. City of ... Anniston, Ala.Sup., 8 So.2d 410; Maya Corporation v ... Smith, 239 Ala. 470, 196 So. 125 ... This ... being an equity ... ...