Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Alabama A.F. & A.M. v. Allen

• Decision Date: 26 October 1922
• Docket Number: 1 Div. 239.
• Citation: 94 So. 343,208 Ala. 292
• Parties: MOST WORSHIPFUL GRAND LODGE OF ALABAMA ANCIENT FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS v. ALLEN ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

94 So. 343

208 Ala. 292

MOST WORSHIPFUL GRAND LODGE OF ALABAMA ANCIENT FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS v. ALLEN ET AL.

1 Div. 239.

Supreme Court of Alabama

October 26, 1922

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Saffold Berney, Judge.

Bill by Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Alabama Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of the State of Alabama against Clarence W Allen, Josephine B. Allen, and the Johnson-Allen Undertaking Company, for discovery, accounting and establishment of equitable lien. From a decree sustaining demurrer complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Harry T. Smith & Caffey, of Mobile, for appellant.

Inge &amp Bates and Vincent F. Kilborn, all of Mobile, for appellees.

SOMERVILLE J.

The law does not give to a creditor the right to appropriate the labor or personal services of a debtor for the satisfaction of his debt. From this it results, as is thoroughly well settled by our decisions, that a debtor may give his labor or services as a gratuity to another, and, when he chooses to do so, a creditor cannot subject the proceeds or profits therefrom to the satisfaction of his debt, nor in any way charge the donee therewith. Hoot v. Sorrell, 11 Ala. 386, 407; Stein v. Robertson, 30 Ala. 286, 296; Alexander v. Pollock, 72 Ala. 137; Carter v. Worthington, 82 Ala. 334, 339, 2 So. 516, 60 Am. Rep. 738; Nance v. Nance, 84 Ala. 375, 4 So. 699, 5 Am. St. Rep. 378; Lister v. Vowell, 122 Ala. 264, 25 So. 564.

The authorities generally are in accord with this view of the law, and the decisions have held with practical unanimity that a debtor may give his personal time, attention, and services to the management and conduct of his wife's business for a series of years, without making the principal invested in or produced by such business, or any part of it, subject to the claims of creditors. Mayers v. Kaiser, 85 Wis. 382, 55 N.W. 688, 21 L. R. A. 623, 39 Am. St. Rep. 849; Wheeler v. Biggs (Miss.) 15 So. 118; Martin v. Banks, 89 Ark. 77, 115 S.W. 928; Alsdurf v. Williams, 196 Ill. 244, 63 N.E. 686; Deere & Co. v. Bonne, 108 Iowa, 281, 79 N.W. 59, 75 Am. St. Rep. 254; Phillips v. Hall, 160 Pa. 60, 28 A. 502; Trapnell v. Conklyn, 37 W.Va. 244, 16 S.E. 570, 38 Am. St. Rep. 30.

So, also, it is held that the dividends and profits accruing from corporate stock owned by a married woman are not liable for her husband's debts, although they are the result of his successful management of the corporation's business. Taylor v. Wands, 55 N. J. Eq. 491, 37 A. 315, 62 Am. St. Rep. 818; Magerstadt v. Schaefer, 213 Ill. 351, 72 N.E. 1063; First Natchez Bank v. Moss, 52 La. Ann. 1524, 28 So. 133.

Manifestly, such a donation of labor or services presents no analogy to a donation of property which is subject to the claims of creditors, and the rules of law that govern fraudulent conveyances can have no application. Counsel for appellant cite several cases (Pinkston v. McLemore, 31 Ala. 308; Carter v. Worthington, 82 Ala. 334, 2 So. 516, 60 Am. Rep. 738; Bangs v. Edwards, 88 Ala. 382, 6 So. 764), holding that the wife's earnings under the old Married Woman's Law, being the property of the husband, could not be given away or transferred by him, except in subordination to the rights of creditors. But those cases do not in any way support appellant's contention here.

In the instant case, the husband of the respondent Josephine Allen could lawfully render service to the respondent corporation, with the understanding that its value should go to his said wife by way of increased dividends on her shares of corporate stock; and such an arrangement, whatever their intention may have been as to keeping his earnings out of the reach of creditors, was not a fraud on them, because it did not take from them anything which they could appropriate to the satisfaction of their demands. Even a fraudulent intent does not make a lawful gift or transfer unlawful. Fellows v. Lewis, 65 Ala. 343, 39 Am. Rep. 1; Carter v. Coleman, 84 Ala. 256, 4 So. 151.

Very clearly, so far as the...