Rice v. Henderson-Boyd Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 23 November 1916
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 618
• Citation: 197 Ala. 579,73 So. 70
• Parties: RICE et al. v. HENDERSON-BOYD LUMBER CO. et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

73 So. 70

197 Ala. 579

RICE et al. v. HENDERSON-BOYD LUMBER CO. et al.

4 Div. 618

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 23, 1916

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

Suit by Pinkie E. Rice and others against the Henderson-Boyd Lumber Company and others. From a decree for respondents complainants appeal. Reversed and rendered.

J.A Carnley, of Elba, for appellants.

W.O Mulkey, of Geneva, for appellees.

GARDNER J.

The bill in this cause was filed to quiet the title to a certain described 180-acre tract of land in Geneva county, Ala., of which one William S. Rice died seised and possessed. At the time of the filing of this suit Pinkie E. Rice, widow of William S. Rice, and mother of complainants, was living on the land with one of her children. It does not appear that a dower had ever been assigned to the widow or proceedings sought to that end. That the possession was peaceable and under claim of ownership, as heirs of William S. Rice, deceased, is without dispute. Lee Rice, one of the heirs, had through business dealings become indebted in the sum of $200 or $300 to the mercantile firm of Henderson-Mizell Company, a corporation, doing business at Samson, Ala., of which company J.E. Henderson was president, L.A. Boyd, a stockholder, and F.J. Mizell, the general manager. It appears from the record that strenuous efforts were made for the collection of this indebtedness, a demand having been made by Mizell and his collecting agent that these complainants--the mother, brothers and sisters--execute a deed to the lands involved in this suit in satisfaction of Lee Rice's indebtedness to the said company. This demand being met with strenuous opposition by complainants, the evidence shows that it was followed by threats on the part of Mizell to the effect that if a deed was not executed, Lee Rice would be arrested and sent to the penitentiary. These threats appear to have been repeated a number of times, and Rice was in fact arrested and placed in the city jail in Samson, where he remained for about four days. While he was so confined pressure was again brought to bear, and the threats of penitentiary imprisonment repeated. Under these circumstances the deed was executed, and Lee Rice released from jail. The charge under which Rice was arrested was that of "obtaining goods under false pretense," but he insisted upon his innocence, and there was no evidence of his guilt. The record discloses that Lee Rice brought suit against the mercantile company for damages growing out of said arrest and imprisonment, which suit was settled by the payment of a substantial sum. It satisfactorily appears from the record that this body of land--180 acres--was valued at from $8 to $10 per acre at the time of the execution of the deed here involved. No consideration whatever passed to the complainants. The facts above noted, leading up to the execution of the said deed, appear to be without contradiction.

Cases of this character, involving on the part of the grantors efforts to have set aside, as having been obtained under duress, conveyances like the one here under consideration have been the subject of frequent adjudication by the courts. The relationship here involved is that of mother and son and brother. The evidence clearly discloses that these parties acted under duress and undue influence in the execution of the deed in question.

It would be useless to enter into a discussion of the rules of law and of the numerous cases applicable here, and indeed such discussion would largely result in mere quotation. We are of the opinion that the following authorities clearly demonstrate the complainants' right to relief under the facts here disclosed: Embry v. Adams, 191 Ala. 291, 68 So. 20; Martin v. Evans, 163 Ala. 657, 50 So. 997; Kirby v. Arnold, 191 Ala. 263, 68 So. 17; Hartford Ins. Co. v. Kirkpatrick, 111 Ala. 456, 20 So. 651; City Nat. Bk. of Dayton v. Kusworm, 26 L.R.A. 48, note; Williamson, etc., Co. v. Acherman, 20 L.R.A. (N.S.) 484, note; and note to Embry v. Adams, L.R.A.1915D, 1118.

The cases of Treadwell v....