Prestwood v. Horn

• Decision Date: 04 November 1915
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 574
• Citation: 195 Ala. 450,70 So. 134
• Parties: PRESTWOOD v. HORN et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

70 So. 134

195 Ala. 450

PRESTWOOD v. HORN et al.

4 Div. 574

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 4, 1915

Appeal from Chancery Court, Coffee County; W.R. Chapman, Chancellor.

Action by Larue Horn and others against F.M. Prestwood. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

R.H Arrington, of Enterprise, and A.B. Foster, of Troy, for appellant.

W.W Sanders, of Elba, for appellees.

McCLELLAN J.

A cloud upon the title to land, that will justify an appeal to a court of equity for its removal, has been definitely described or defined in the decisions of this court. A conveyance void on its face--that if relied on in an action would show, when offered, its own invalidity and the absence of any basis of right in the claimant thereunder--will not cast a shadow, and is not a cloud on a title.

"The true test recognized by the authorities in this state [is]: Would the owner of the property, in an action of ejectment brought by the adverse party, founded upon the deed, be required to offer evidence to defeat a recovery? If such proof would be necessary the cloud would exist; if the proof would be unnecessary, no shade would be cast by the presence of the deed. If the action would fall of its own weight, without proof, in rebuttal, no occasion could arise for the equitable interposition of the court." Rea v. Longstreet, 54 Ala. 291, 294; Rankin v Dean, 173 Ala. 60, 63, 55 So. 217, among others.

It seems to be supposed that the expression, to be quoted, in the opinion in Rea v. Longstreet, supra, has the effect to introduce a qualification of the rule above quoted, and so to this degree, if the chain of title of the party seeking in equity the cancellation of a conveyance, valid on its face, as a cloud on his title, does or would disclose the utter inefficiency of the conveyance assailed, to reflect upon the complaining party's title, then the conveyance sought to be canceled is not a cloud on his title, casts no shadow on his title, and a bill to cancel such a conveyance would be without equity. The expression mentioned is this:

"A court of equity will not interfere to prevent or remove a cloud which can only be shown to be prima facie a good title by leaving the plaintiff's title entirely out of view."

It is a clear mistake to interpret the language quoted to the effect we have stated. There the court was concerned with the allegations of a bill--a bill averring that the land was the separate statutory estate of the wife [[complainant] purchased with her own funds from a third party. Subsequently, judgment creditors of the complainant's husband caused writs of attachment to be levied upon those lands of the wife to satisfy adjudicated demands of the husband. The wife (complainant) sought by her bill to discharge the levy of the writs of attachment on her land, with the view to averting and avoiding the cloud upon and the clouding of her asserted title to the lands subjected to the levy. The court concluded, as upon the averments of the bill, that this levy upon, and the threatened and impending effort to sell, the land did not and would not cast any shade upon the alleged title of the complainant, she having acquired her asserted title--not through her husband or from any common source with him, the defendant in the writs of attachment--with her own means, from a third party. The sum of...