Park v. Lide

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtMCCLELLAN, J.
Citation7 So. 805,90 Ala. 246
Decision Date08 May 1890
PartiesPARK v. LIDE. LIDE v. PARK.

7 So. 805

90 Ala. 246

PARK
v.
LIDE.

LIDE
v.
PARK.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 8, 1890


Appeal from city court of Montgomery; THOMAS M. ARRINGTON, Chancellor.

Watts & Son and Tompkins & Troy, for complainant.

Graves & Blakey, for defendant.

MCCLELLAN, J.

This record does not sufficiently present the action of the chancery court on the demurrer to the bill to enable us to review it. No decree in that behalf appears in the transcript. What seems to be a mere docket memorandum of the chancellor is transcribed; but that is not a decree, but a mere direction of the chancellor to the register, which may or may not have been developed into a decree by formal incorporation into the minutes of the court. We cannot consider assignments of error based on it. Baker v. Swift, 87 Ala. 530, 6 South. Rep. 153.

This leaves for consideration only the final decree on the merits of the case. The undisputed facts may be stated as follows: At the inception of the transactions involved here, Alex. McDade owned the tract of land in controversy, containing 1,220 acres, worth about $2,500. He executed three several mortgages on the land to secure the payment of debts,-one to Charles McDade, May 1, 1875, for $720, of which $250 remained unpaid when the facts involved in this dispute transpired; another to his daughter Janie S. McDade, April 12, 1876, for $1,125; and a third to Lemuel W. Park, February 1, 1877, for $728. On April 12,1877, he executed to his said daughter a deed of gift in fee to this land, covering also his personal property, to take effect on his death, which occurred a few days afterwards. Howard P. Park, a brother of L. W., referred to above, in June, 1877, married Janie S. McDade, who died intestate and without issue, and leaving no debts, in May, 1878; her husband having in the mean time taken possession of all the personalty which came to her from her father, and also the tract of land in controversy. Prior to her death, on the 6th and 7th of March, 1878, all of the mortgages, including that made to Janie S. Park, née McDade, were foreclosed under powers of sale contained in them, respectively; and at each sale Robert E. Park, another brother of the defendant, became the purchaser, bidding the amount of the mortgage debt in each instance. Each of the mortgagees executed conveyances to him; the deed of Janie S. Park, however, not being joined in by her husband. On October 11, 1878, Robert E. Park conveyed the land to Howard P. Park on a recited consideration just equal in amount to the aggregate of the several mortgage debts at the time of foreclosure, seven months before. The complainant, Frank W. Lide, was a half-brother of Janie S. Park, deceased, and her only heir at law, except the surviving husband. The bill avers that the defendant, Howard P. Park, before the 6th of March, 1878, had paid off the Charles McDade and L. W. Park mortgages with the proceeds of personal property belonging to his wife, but, by collusion with said mortgagees and Robert E. Park, fraudulently, and, with intent to cut off the rights of the complainant as the heir at law of said Janie S., had these mortgages, though fully satisfied, as also that of his wife, foreclosed; that Robert E. Park, as a part of the fraudulent scheme, became nominally the purchaser, under an agreement to reconvey to Howard P. Park, but that he never paid anything whatever for the land thus purchased to either of said mortgagees. Upon this state of facts, in part confessed, but in other part denied, the theory of the bill is that, the mortgages to McDade and L. W. Park having been paid with the proceeds of her property, they, as well as the one originally executed to her, belonged to said Janie S. Park, and hence said foreclosures were either absolutely void, and did not pass either the legal or equitable title out of her, or, being made under the supervision of her husband and trustee, were for her benefit, and the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • Robinson v. Pierce
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 29, 1898
    ...then. To hold otherwise would be to depart from and overrule the following authorities: Wormley v. Wormley, 8 Wheat. 42; Park v. Lide, 90 Ala. 246, 251, 7 So. 805; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. §§ 913, 919; 3 Pom. Eq. Jur. § 1334; Foley v. Burnell, 1 Brown, Ch. 274, 277; Smith v. Barham, 17 N.C. 425, 4......
  • Lamont v. Marbury Lumber Co., 60
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 14, 1914
    ...124 Ala. 596, 26 So. 918; McDonald v. Ala. Mid. Ry. Co., 123 Ala. 227, 26 So. 165; Baker v. Swift, 87 Ala. 530, 6 So. 153; Park v. Lide, 90 Ala. 246, 7 So. 805; Morgan v. Flexner, 105 Ala. 356, 16 So. 716; Long v. Holley, 157 Ala. 514, 47 So. 655; Crawford v. Crawford, 119 Ala. 34, 24 So. 7......
  • Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co. v. McCree, 6 Div. 954.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 17, 1924
    ...400, 18 So. 30; Horan v. Gray & Dudley Hdw. Co., 159 Ala. 159, 48 So. 1029; Vogler v. Manson, 200 Ala. 351, 76 So. 117. In Park v. Lide, 90 Ala. 246, 7 So. 805, the docket memorandum of the chancellor, "demurrer overruled," was not embraced in the formal decree. So of Sivoly v. Scott, 56 Al......
  • Mangham v. Mangham, 5 Div. 628
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • November 28, 1955
    ...727; Condon v. Enger & Co., 113 Ala. 233, 21 So. 227; Mann v. Hyams, 101 Ala. 431, 13 So. 681. As was said in the case of Park v. Lide, 90 Ala. 246, 7 So. 805, which was also an appeal on demurrer to a bill of 'This record does not sufficiently present the action of the chancery court on th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • Robinson v. Pierce
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 29, 1898
    ...then. To hold otherwise would be to depart from and overrule the following authorities: Wormley v. Wormley, 8 Wheat. 42; Park v. Lide, 90 Ala. 246, 251, 7 So. 805; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. §§ 913, 919; 3 Pom. Eq. Jur. § 1334; Foley v. Burnell, 1 Brown, Ch. 274, 277; Smith v. Barham, 17 N.C. 425, 4......
  • Lamont v. Marbury Lumber Co., 60
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 14, 1914
    ...124 Ala. 596, 26 So. 918; McDonald v. Ala. Mid. Ry. Co., 123 Ala. 227, 26 So. 165; Baker v. Swift, 87 Ala. 530, 6 So. 153; Park v. Lide, 90 Ala. 246, 7 So. 805; Morgan v. Flexner, 105 Ala. 356, 16 So. 716; Long v. Holley, 157 Ala. 514, 47 So. 655; Crawford v. Crawford, 119 Ala. 34, 24 So. 7......
  • Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co. v. McCree, 6 Div. 954.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 17, 1924
    ...400, 18 So. 30; Horan v. Gray & Dudley Hdw. Co., 159 Ala. 159, 48 So. 1029; Vogler v. Manson, 200 Ala. 351, 76 So. 117. In Park v. Lide, 90 Ala. 246, 7 So. 805, the docket memorandum of the chancellor, "demurrer overruled," was not embraced in the formal decree. So of Sivoly v. Scott, 56 Al......
  • Mangham v. Mangham, 5 Div. 628
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • November 28, 1955
    ...727; Condon v. Enger & Co., 113 Ala. 233, 21 So. 227; Mann v. Hyams, 101 Ala. 431, 13 So. 681. As was said in the case of Park v. Lide, 90 Ala. 246, 7 So. 805, which was also an appeal on demurrer to a bill of 'This record does not sufficiently present the action of the chancery court on th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT