Pinkston v. Boykin

• Decision Date: 29 May 1901
• Citation: 30 So. 398,130 Ala. 483
• Parties: PINKSTON v. BOYKIN.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

30 So. 398

130 Ala. 483

PINKSTON v. BOYKIN.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 29, 1901

Appeal from chancery court, Macon county; William L. Parks Chancellor.

Bill by Frank M. Boykin against James C. Pinkston to set aside a conveyance of land for fraud. From a decree overruling a motion to dismiss the bill for want of equity, and overruling demurrers to the bill, defendant appeals. Order overruling motion to dismiss affirmed, and order overruling demurrers reversed.

As originally filed, the bill based the complainant's right to relief upon two grounds,-the first, that he was a minor at the time of the transaction; and, second, that the sale and conveyance were procured by the fraud of the defendant. The bill was amended by striking therefrom the averments and prayer looking to relief upon the ground of the complainant's minority, and it is therefore unnecessary to set out in detail the averments of the bill in this regard. The substance of the averments of the bill as amended, presenting a case for relief upon the ground that the sale and conveyance sought to be invoked and canceled were procured to be made and executed by the fraud of the defendant, is sufficiently shown in the opinion. As prefatory to the averments of the bill showing the fraud practiced upon the complainant by the representative or agent of the defendant, the bill contained the following averments "That, well knowing your orator's inexperience and absence of knowledge of the true value of said plantation said James C. Pinkston conceived the design of procuring by deception and fraud the said plantation from orator at a sum greatly less than its true value." The bill, as amended contained the following averments: "That, shortly after the first of the notes given for the purchase money matured all said notes were discounted, and orator had nothing more to do with the transaction. And orator's connection with said transaction thus terminated entirely in a short while after said sale." The lands involved in controversy, and which were sold and conveyed by the complainant to the defendant, were described in the bill as follows: "All that certain plantation or tract of land in the county of Macon, in said state, known as the 'Shorter Plantation,' lying near Shorter's depot, on the Western Railway of Alabama, except so much thereof as was turned over to the representative of Lucy B. Noble on a division of said land between Lucy B. Noble and the representative of Clara E. Boykin, containing about two thousand and two hundred acres. being the same land on said place as was occupied and held by Frank S. Boykin up to the time of his death; said land being bounded on the north by the Tallapoosa river and Calebee creek, on the east by land of Letcher Jordan and Noble, on the south by the lands of Noble and Cubahatchie creek, on the west by estate of Jesse Jordan and lands of John K. Watson." After the averment of the facts upon which the complainant based his relief, the bill then continues as follows: "Orator avers on information and belief that said Pinkston has, by the reception of rents and profits from said lands, been largely overpaid the sum, with interest, paid for them by him, after compensating him for all permanent improvement he has made if, under the circumstances alleged, said Pinkston is entitled to set off the value of such improvements, which orator, on advice of counsel, avers is not the case. But, if he should be held entitled to such improvements, then your orator offers to give him credit for the sum on the accounting prayed. And, if mistaken in the averment that said purchase money has been fully paid, orator hereby offers to pay any sum which shall finally appear to be owing to said Pinkston, and offers to do and perform such other things as the court may determine to be equitable, hereby fully submitting himself to the court." The defendant moved to dismiss the bill as amended for the want of equity, and also demurred to the said bill as amended upon several grounds, which may be summarized as follows: (1) The bill was not filed for more than four years after the sale which is sought to be set aside and vacated, and therefore the rights sought to be enforced are stale. (2) It is not alleged that the complainant did not know the true value of the land at the time of the sale. (3) The name of the person whom it is alleged was the representative of the defendant, and whom the defendant directed to mislead and deceive the complainant, is not given. (4) The complainant does not offer in his bill to do equity. (5) The complainant does not offer to return the money, with interest, which he received from the defendant, nor does it allege his inability to do so. (6) The complainant, by discounting the notes given for the lands after he became 21 years of age, confirms said sale. (7) The bill does not show definitely what lands were sold by the complainant to the defendant. (8) There is no allegation in the bill that the alleged fraud could not have been discovered before he discounted the notes, and long before he filed the present bill. On the submission of the cause upon the motion to dismiss the bill for the want of equity and upon the demurrers, the chancellor rendered a decree overruling both the motion and the demurrers. From this decree the defendant appeals, and assigns the rendition...