McDowell v. Herren

• Decision Date: 18 April 1929
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 867.
• Citation: 122 So. 336,219 Ala. 370
• Parties: MCDOWELL v. HERREN ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

122 So. 336

219 Ala. 370

MCDOWELL v. HERREN ET AL.

7 Div. 867.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 18, 1929

Rehearing Denied May 23, 1929.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; R. B. Carr, Judge.

Bill in equity by Mrs. Irene McDowell against Mrs. A. C. Herren and others to quiet title to real estate. From a decree sustaining a demurrer to the bill, complainant appeals. Reversed, rendered, and remanded.

Chas F. Douglas, of Anniston, for appellant.

John D Bibb and R. M. Woolf, of Anniston, for appellees.

ANDERSON C.J.

The bill is to quiet title and charges that one Haynes is setting up a claim to or upon the land involved. The bill also avers that the complainant claims title under a deed from the Herrens and that Haynes claims under a lien or title against the Herrens prior to his said deed. The Herrens were therefore proper, if not necessary, parties to the cause, and the bill was not subject to demurrer as for improper parties. Smith v. Gaines, 210 Ala. 245, 97 So. 739.

The Herrens being the common source of title of complainant, and the title or claim of the principal respondent, they should be given the opportunity to make good their warranty by giving evidence to defeat the adverse claim, or by removing such incumbrance, if sustained.

It is true that when the equity of a bill fails, it cannot be retained for granting relief available at law. Note 19 L. R A. (N. S.) page 1065, Brauer v. Laughlin, 235 Ill. 265, 85 N.E. 283; Collier v. Collier (N. J. Ch.) 33 A. 193; Pond v. Lockwood, 8 Ala. 669; Bromberg v. Eugenotto Const. Co., 158 Ala. 323, 48 So. 60, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1175. But it does not follow that the equity of a statutory bill to quiet title has failed by an adjudication that respondent Haynes has a superior lien or claim. The purpose of the statute is to adjudicate adverse claims. If the complainant avers and proves the jurisdictional facts prescribed by the statute, he is entitled to have respondent's title set up and adjudicated. This is the relief prayed, and the purpose of the bill is obtained, whether the adverse claim is held good or bad. It follows that in the event such claim is held good, the court of equity should proceed to grant such further relief against any party properly brought before the court in adjudicating the adverse claim, as may be required to do complete justice, whether such additional relief may be had by separate action at law.

We think the bill...