Murray v. Murray, 6 Div. 729.

• Decision Date: 20 February 1941
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 729.
• Citation: 240 Ala. 550,200 So. 559
• Parties: MURRAY v. MURRAY.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

200 So. 559

240 Ala. 550

MURRAY v. MURRAY.

6 Div. 729.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 20, 1941

Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; R. L. Blanton, Judge.

Suit in equity by J. W. Murray against G. W. Murray to enforce a vendor's lien. From a decree denying relief and dismissing the bill, complainant appeals.

Affirmed.

Pennington & Tweedy, of Jasper, for appellant.

Arthur Fite, of Jasper, for appellee.

FOSTER Justice.

The purpose of this suit is to enforce in equity a vendor's lien to obtain payment of the purchase price of a forty acres of land (northwest quarter of northwest quarter) deeded by appellant to appellee along with another forty (southwest quarter of northwest quarter).

The deed in question was executed October 29, 1931, and recited a consideration of $1,250, as having been paid.

Complainant claims that payment of $20 was made, and alleges that at his instance respondent conveyed the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter to complainant's cousin for $800, and then agreed to pay him $550, of which he paid $20. That contention raises the total consideration to $1,350, which is not satisfactorily explained by complainant. The parties are brothers. Complainant was a prosperous farmer and merchant and owned considerable property, as the parties viewed matters. Respondent was a miner and out of a job. He claims that complainant had become security on a debt to the bank for another, and determined to avoid or delay paying it; that in pursuance thereof, he proposed to and did convey this land to respondent without consideration and with the intention that the forty in question would be a gift, and the other one subject to complainant's disposal. That he did not agree to pay anything for any of it. That he went into possession of the forty in question and has continued to hold it, and made the deed of the other forty to the purchaser from complainant as requested.

Another feature of the defense is that assuming the agreement to pay the consideration named in the deed, a court of equity will not raise a vendor's lien, which is a sort of trust relationship, out of a transaction whereby the vendor made the conveyance for the purpose of hindering, delaying or defrauding his creditors. That principle has been sustained in Alabama, Glover v. Walker, 107 Ala. 540, 18 So 251; Baird v. Howison, 154 Ala. 359, 45 So. 668 though there is a conflict of opinion in some other quarters. 27 Corpus Juris 663 (Fraudulent Contracts) sections 437, 438.

Another principle in that connection is that a conveyance may become purged of infirmities caused by its initial fraudulent purpose, and become a legitimate transaction as between the parties by matters subsequently occurring effective as of the latter occurrence. High v. Nelms, 14 Ala. 350, 353, 48 Am.Dec. 103; Stover v. Herrington, 7 Ala. 142, 151, 41 Am.Dec. 86; 24 Am.Jur. 263 (Fraudulent Contracts) section 113.

There was no note given or other evidence of a debt. Complainant about that time was disposing of much of his tangible property. He did eventually pay the balance...