Morgan v. Gaiter

• Decision Date: 13 February 1919
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 811
• Parties: MORGAN v. GAITER.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

80 So. 876

202 Ala. 492

MORGAN v. GAITER.

6 Div. 811

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 13, 1919

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Hugh A. Locke, Judge.

Bill by John Gaiter against W.B. Morgan, administrator of the estate of Harry Wilson, deceased, for the cancellation on the ground of fraud of two certain instruments executed by the complainant to the respondent. From a decree overruling the demurrer to the bill as amended, the defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Bill by appellee against the appellant to cancel, on the ground of fraud, two certain instruments executed by the complainant to the respondent. From a decree overruling the demurrer to the bill as amended, respondent prosecutes this appeal.

The bill as amended seeks the cancellation of two certain receipts or releases executed by the complainant to the respondent, as administrator of the estate of Harry Wilson deceased, reciting a payment of the sum of $50, and releasing said respondent as administrator of the said estate and his bondsman from any claim or demand which complainant may have against the respondent, individully or as administrator. Copies of these receipts are attached to the bill as Exhibits C and D, and each refers to the case (No. 4830) then pending in the city court of Birmingham, styled in the name of this complainant against respondent administrator and others. The receipt marked Exhibit B dismisses said bill. These receipts were dated May 29, 1913.

The bill alleges in substance that respondent was duly appointed administrator of the estate of Harry Wilson, deceased, and that complainant is the half-brother and heir at law of said Wilson, and is entitled to the proceeds of said estate; that in May, 1911, respondent filed his accounts for final settlement of said estate, and in June, 1911, final settlement of said estate was had, and decree rendered by the probate court of Jefferson county in favor of John Gaiter the heir at law of said Harry Wilson, deceased, which decree is made a part of the bill as an exhibit thereto; that the complainant is the owner of said decree, never having assigned or transferred the same, and that the same has never been paid; that on May 29, 1913, complainant was paid the sum of $50 by respondent, at which time he signed one or two papers, which he thought were receipts acknowledging the payment of said sum; and that he has since been informed that in fact he signed two receipts, which are in words and figures as set out in Exhibits C and D. It is further shown that complainant is an illiterate, ignorant, and weak-minded negro, and was such at the time of the execution of said receipt, and did not know or appreciate the legal effect of the same; that at the time of the payment of said $50, and the execution of said receipts, he was entirely without means or property of any kind; that at the time of the execution of said receipts, or releases, respondent concealed from complainant the fact that he (respondent), in his capacity as administrator of the estate of complainant's half-brother, Harry Wilson, deceased, was due complainant the sum of $1,431.30, and that respondent at said time represented to complainant that he (respondent) was due complainant only $50; that complainant relied upon this statement of respondent in accepting said $50, and in executing what he thought to be in effect only a receipt for the same; that at the time he had no disinterested party to give him any advice, or to inform him what his rights were in the premises, or as to the amount to which he was entitled. It is further alleged that respondent took advantage of his pecuniary necessities, ignorance, and weakness of mind, and that said sum so paid him was grossly disproportionate to the value of said estate, and that on account of said advantages taken of him, as above stated, said releases should be vacated and held for naught. In paragraph 5 complainant submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court, and offers to do complete equity, and make such payment to the respondent as may be by the court ascertained to be just and decreed against him to be paid.

The decree of the probate court is made an exhibit to the bill and contains a judgment in favor of John Gaiter against respondent, as administrator, in the sum of $1,431.30, as his distributive share of said estate, for which execution may be issued.

The bill was demurred to on the ground that, if the decree of the probate court is valid, the complainant has an adequate remedy at law; that it affirmatively appears that complainant is guilty of laches in instituting this proceeding; that the facts alleged do not constitute fraud as a matter of law that it affirmatively appears that complainant voluntarily executed this instrument, and was aware of its contents; that it is not averred in said bill that complainant was not informed of the contents of said instrument; and that it was not averred that complainant restored or offered to restore the consideration received by him for the execution of said instrument. The demurrer was overruled.

Motion was made to abate the cause, and complainant be required to pay the costs of the case of John Gaiter v. W. Barnes Morgan et al. (No. 4830), in the city court of Birmingham, which was filed by complainant in October, 1911, and which was dismissed December 6, 1916, upon the ground that it involved the same subject-matter as here involved, and that the complainant is the identical party who was the complainant in said cause, and also to require said complainant to pay the costs accruing in the probate court on motion of complainant to revive a certain judgment against respondent, upon the same grounds as assigned to the other cause, and that costs accrued in said causes have not been paid.

The court entered a decree upon said motion, referring the matter to the register to hold a reference and report, first, whether or not former suits described and set forth in the petition were between the same parties as in this cause; and, second, whether the questions litigated in said cause were the same as those involved in this cause. The reference was had, and the register reported that the parties known as complainant and respondent in each of the causes are not identical, and that the different causes represented and referred to are not identical, and that their purposes are not the same. No objections were filed to said report, and a decree was entered confirming the same.

Bondurant & Smith, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Jerre C. King, of Birmingham, for appellee.

GARDNER J.

The bill as amended seeks only the cancellation of two receipts, copies of which are attached as exhibits to the bill; and that a court of equity will, in a proper case, entertain jurisdiction for such purposes is well established. So. States Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Whatley, 173 Ala. 101, 55 So. 620; Perry v. Boyd, 126 Ala. 162, 28 So. 711, 85 Am.St.Rep. 17; Anders v. Sandlin, 191 Ala. 158, 67 So. 684.

Some of the argument of appellant's counsel seems to be based upon the theory that the bill seeks to, in...