Nichols v. Dill, 6 Div. 702.
| Decision Date | 12 March 1931 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 702. |
| Citation | 132 So. 900,222 Ala. 455 |
| Parties | NICHOLS ET AL. v. DILL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; R. L. Blanton, Judge.
Suit by Daisy Dill against W. C. Nichols and another. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill, respondents appeal.
Affirmed.
Davis & Curtis, of Jasper, for appellants.
R. A Cooner, of Jasper, and Z. P. Shepherd, of Carbon Hill, for appellee.
This is an original bill to impeach a decree for fraud and not a bill of review as dealt with in section 6607 of the Code of 1923 and leave to file same under section 6608 was not necessary. McDonald v. Pearson, 114 Ala. 630, 21 So. 534; Graves v. Brittingham, 209 Ala. 147, 95 So. 542.
While the limitation as to time fixed by section 6608 has been extended by way of analogy to bills to impeach a decree section 8966 modifies this rule to the extent of allowing one year after the discovery of the fraud. Heflin v. Ashford, 85 Ala. 125, 3 So. 760.
As we understand, the bill charges a fraud and conspiracy on the part of complainant's agent, Charlotte Longstreet, and her corespondent, Nichols, to defraud her of her land by the concoction of a decree of the court adjudging that she has no interest in said land and that she had no notice as required by law of the proceedings. There is no question but what the bill makes out a clear and strong case of a fraudulent scheme upon the part of these respondents to acquire her land through the medium of the equity court and, in effect, charges a fraud upon the court to induce jurisdiction of the cause; that is, the bill charges: That she was a nonresident and "that the complainant had made diligent inquiry and reasonable effort to obtain information as to the particular place of the residence of Daisy Dill, and had been unable to do so and aver that the particular place of residence of the said Daisy Dill is unknown." That the affidavit for publication has a similar statement and that this statement was false, in that the complainant, in the former suit, knew of her place of residence in West Virginia or he was false in stating that he had made due inquiry as his coconspirator and corespondent knew where her place of residence was. That, had the real facts been stated, her last place of residence would have been disclosed to the court and she would have received the notice by registered mail as required by section 9431 of the Code of 1923, and this fact was purposely omitted to induce the court to assume jurisdiction and proceed to act without having given the notice by registered mail as required by said section 9431. Should there be a conflict between section 9431 and Chancery Rule 22 as to giving notice to nonresidents, the statute must prevail.
We think that the fraud charged went to the assumption of jurisdiction by the trial court by a false statement in the bill and affidavit and that the court would not have considered the cause in the absence of notice to Daisy Dill as required by section 9431 had the true facts been presented, and this case falls within the influence of Keenum v. Dodson, 212 Ala. 146, 102 So. 230; Lester...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duncan v. Johnson
...of limitations is three years, by analogy to section 6608, Code, as limited by the one year statute, section 8966, Code. Nichols v. Dill, 222 Ala. 455, 132 So. 900; Manegold v. Beavan, 189 Ala. 241, 66 So. 448; Gordon v. Ross, 63 Ala. 'But no disability shall extend the period beyond twenty......
-
Ex parte Foshee
... 21 So.2d 827 246 Ala. 604 Ex parte FOSHEE. 5 Div. 398. Supreme Court of Alabama January 25, 1945 ... takes precedence over a rule of the Court. Nichols v ... Dill, 222 Ala. 455, 132 So. 900; Williams v ... 479; Wayman v. Southard, 10 ... Wheat. 1, 42, 6 L.Ed. 253. The power of this Court flowing ... from the ... ...
-
Schoenvogel v. Venator Group Retail, Inc.
...has been the recognized doctrine in this State that a legislative enactment takes precedence over a rule of the Court. Nichols v. Dill, 222 Ala. 455, 132 So. 900 [(1931)]; Williams v. Knight, 233 Ala. [42], 169 So. 871 [(1936)]; Porter v. State, 234 Ala. 11, 174 So. 311 [(1937)]; 21 Corpus ......
-
Fletcher v. First Nat. Bank of Opelika
...by analogy to bills in the nature of bills of review to impeach a decree for fraud. Gordon's Adm'r v. Ross, 63 Ala. 363; Nichols v. Dill, 222 Ala. 455, 132 So. 900; Manegold v. Beavan, 189 Ala. 241, 66 So. Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 230 Ala. 567, 161 So. 820. And whether we regard section 6608......