Oakley v. Shelley

• Decision Date: 20 December 1900
• Citation: 129 Ala. 467,29 So. 385
• Parties: OAKLEY v. SHELLEY.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

29 So. 385

129 Ala. 467

OAKLEY v. SHELLEY.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 20, 1900

Appeal from chancery court, Henry county; W. L. Parks, Judge.

Bill by Reuben E. Shelley against W. F. Oakley to have a deed of realty set aside and canceled. From a decree in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

J. G Cowan and W. L. Lee, for appellant.

R. H Walker, for appellee.

SHARPE J.

On the 9th of December, 1879, complainant executed to respondent a mortgage on the land in controversy and on crops and certain machinery, including a gin, a boiler, and a saw, to secure a recited indebtedness of $647.63, due to a firm of which respondent was a member. On November 18, 1898, the mortgage debt being then in part due, complainant conveyed the land to respondent by an absolute deed for the stated consideration of $900, made up of a balance due on that debt, together with certain accounts on third persons transferred to complainant and respondent's duebill for $43; and it was agreed that the mortgage be satisfied, thereby releasing the personal property. A few weeks thereafter complainant refused to yield possession of the land, and when sued therefor he filed this bill, praying cancellation of the deed on the ground that at the time of its execution he was, by the respondent's procurement, "brought so much under the influence of whisky as to be incapable of business of any character."

The right of a mortgagor to redeem his property before foreclosure is jealously guarded in equity; so that agreements for its extinguishment, as by a sale from the mortgagor to the mortgagee, will be closely scrutinized by the court; and, if found to have been induced by an unfair or oppressive use of the advantage which is presumed to be held by the mortgagee, such an agreement will be set aside, and redemption allowed. Locke's Ex'r v. Palmer, 26 Ala. 313; Goodman's Ex'rs v. Pledger's Adm'rs, 14 Ala 114; Story, Eq. Jur. § 1019. Such a sale, however, will be upheld when fair, since both parties may desire it, and each may consider it beneficial to himself; and in such case the maxim, "Once a mortgage, always a mortgage," is not applicable. Peagler v. Stabler, 91 Ala. 308, 9 So. 157; Parmer v. Parmer, 74 Ala. 288; McKinstry v. Conly, 12 Ala. 678; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur. § 1193, note 1. Here it is not alleged in the bill that the respondent made any misrepresentation to, or obtained any financial advantage over, the complainant, and, though some evidence is directed to showing that the land was worth more than the price paid, it appears to be outweighed by evidence to the contrary.

Upon the question of drunkenness-the ground upon which is rested the equity of the bill-there is conflicting testimony. It is proved that the respondent gave the complainant at least two drinks of whisky, and it is fairly inferable from the testimony that the...