Schwab v. Powers
| Decision Date | 08 March 1934 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 377. |
| Citation | 153 So. 423,228 Ala. 205 |
| Parties | SCHWAB v. POWERS et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Wm. M. Walker, Judge.
Creditor's bill by Herald J. Schwab against Ida L. Powers and Sterling W. Powers. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals.
Reversed, and the cause remanded.
Murphy, Hanna, Woodall & Lindbergh and Rossie Rogers, all of Birmingham, for appellant.
Taylor & Higgins, of Birmingham, for appellees.
A conveyance of lands from parent to child on a recited consideration of $1 in hand paid, the receipt whereof is acknowledged, and the further consideration of love and affection, is construed as a voluntary conveyance, supported by a good, rather than a valuable, consideration. It is, therefore, void on its face against existing creditors of the grantor. On a bill filed by an existing creditor of the grantor to set aside such conveyance and subject the lands to the payment of his debt, parol evidence is inadmissible to prove a valuable consideration, such as an indebtedness owing by the grantor to the grantee.
This has been the long-settled law in Alabama, and we are not now disposed to review or bring in question the grounds on which such rule is rested. Houston v. Blackman, 66 Ala. 559, 41 Am. Rep. 756; London v. G. L. Anderson Brass Works, 197 Ala. 16, 72 So. 359; Murphy, Trustee, etc., v. Branch Bank at Mobile, 16 Ala. 90; Felder v. Harper, 12 Ala. 612; Potter & Son v. Gracie, 58 Ala. 303, 29 Am. Rep. 748; York et al. v. Leverett, 159 Ala. 529, 48 So. 684; Folmar et al. v. Lehman-Durr Co., 147 Ala. 472, 41 So. 750; Gunn v. Hardy et al., 130 Ala. 642, 31 So. 443; Gilliland v. Hawkins, 216 Ala. 97, 112 So. 454; 27 C.J. page 528.
The status of an existing creditor is determined by the date the debt is incurred, not the date of maturity. We do not construe the trial court's opinion as opposed to this elementary rule. But, in considering the evidence offered over the objection of complainant touching an indebtedness due from grantor to grantee as the consideration for the deed, and in basing his decree on the fact that no actual fraud was proven, there was error to reverse. Code, § 6565.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Belleville Casket Co. v. Brueggeman
...acquired. 27 C.J., page 811, sec. 747; Blue v. Penniston, 27 Mo. 272; Stout v. Stout, 77 Ind. 537; Paulk v. Cooke, 39 Conn. 566; Schwab v. Powers, 228 Ala. 205; Ashbaugh v. Sauer, 268 Mich. 467; Williamson v. Bender, 107 N.J.Eq. 466; 37 C.J.S., Fraudulent Conveyances, p. 908, sec. 64. (4) E......
-
Pfingstl v. Solomon, 3 Div. 310.
... ... Its ... jurisdiction in this case has a much more extensive scope, ... and is based on its traditional powers ... When ... Solomon died in May, 1939, the purpose had not been ... accomplished. The plants had had one and one-half years of ... such evidence was considered by the court. We have said that ... such situation warrants a reversal of the decree. Schwab ... v. Powers, 228 Ala. 205, 153 So. 423 ... In ... another case we said that if such illegal evidence is ... eliminated, the court ... ...
-
Jennings v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co.
...that the illegal evidence was considered in the rendition of the decree. Pfingstl v. Solomon, 240 Ala. 58, 197 So. 12; Schwab v. Powers, 228 Ala. 205, 153 So. 423; Acts of Alabama 1943, p. 105, Code 1940, Tit. 7, § The policy introduced in evidence is in form a certificate of the 'Provident......
-
Low v. Low
...evidence is without conflict and sufficient to support the judgment. Pfingstl v. Solomon, 240 Ala. 58, 197 So. 12; Schwab v. Powers, 228 Ala. 205, 153 So. 423. This is not inconsistent with the statute which requires that it is not necessary to object to illegal evidence in equity trials. T......