Scott v. Hardyman

• Decision Date: 20 December 1928
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 22
• Parties: SCOTT v. HARDYMAN
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

119 So. 224

218 Ala. 515

SCOTT v. HARDYMAN

6 Div. 22

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 20, 1928

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Bessemer Division J.C.B. Gwin, Judge.

Bill to quiet title to real estate by M.E. Hardyman against Alma M Scott, and cross-bill by respondent. From a decree for complainant, respondent appeals. Affirmed.

L.H Etheridge, of Bessemer, for appellant.

McEniry & McEniry, of Bessemer, for appellee.

FOSTER J.

This is a statutory bill to quiet the title and to require respondent to set forth her title to the west 20 acres in the S.W. 1/4 of S.E. 1/4, section 9, township 19, range 5. The respondent filed an answer and cross-bill. The answer denies that complainant owns the land in question. The cross-bill alleges that complainant and her husband deeded the land along with the east 20 acres in said 40 to Pinkney Scott on March 15, 1923, and he deeded it to respondent, his daughter, and that complainant is wrongfully withholding the land from her; that her title be declared, and complainant be restrained from occupying and trespassing on the land, and for general relief.

The answer to the cross-bill set up that the deed to Pinkney Scott was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, and unfair dealing with complainant. Complainant is the wife of R.L. Hardyman. Prior to 1909 he owned 40 acres of land where his home is situated, the west 20 acres of which are here in question. In that year he conveyed to complainant the S.W. 1/4 of S.W. 1/4, section 9, township 19, range 5 west, which, though it did not describe the land in questions, it is claimed was so intended. On May 14, 1927, he appears to have executed a deed conveying to complainant the S.W. 1/4 of the S.E. 1/4 of said section, township, and range, embracing the land in question. The bill was filed May 17, 1927. The fraud and unfair dealing, as alleged, consisted in this: R.L. Hardyman was in jail charged with murder; that Scott, as attorney, had been employed to represent him; that he declined to proceed with the defense without a deed conveying him the east 20 acres of the 40; that she agreed for him to prepare a deed for their signature, embracing the east 20 acres, whereas he included the entire 40 acres; that he never read the deed to her, nor acquainted her with its contents; that the west 20 acres was her homestead; that she and her husband could not read; that her husband was in jail, and that she did not know the contents of the deed, but relied on her attorney as to its contents, and without knowing the contents she executed the deed conveying both 20-acre tracts, including the west half on which her home was situated, and contrary to the agreement. Scott had been attorney for Hardyman for many years, and had been employed in this case prior to the deed transaction, but no agreement as to fees was made.

Evidence was taken, both by deposition and orally, in the presence of the court. The court rendered its decree, denying relief on the cross-bill, and adjudging title of the west 20-acre tract in complainant.

The principles of law which have application are very well established. Some of them may be stated as follows:

"The principle in all our cases is, that while the confidential relation lasts, and as to its subject-matter, there must be no abuse of confidence with respect to it, by which the attorney secures an unjust advantage over the client. It is easy to see, that in such time, and as to the business in which he is employed, the attorney could make unfair and unconscionable demands to which the client would yield, although he regarded them unjust, out of the fear of the consequences of a refusal, or from the attorney's undue influence over him; but, when the business is over, and the client, being sui juris, and fully informed as to the business transacted, and is on equal terms and dealing at arm's length with the attorney, voluntarily stipulates with him for compensation for his services which have been rendered, we are not aware of any principle on which such settlement can be properly set aside by the client, on the ground that he did not have competent and independent advice in making such settlement. Such a settlement could be set aside alone on the ground that there had been 'some intermixture of deceit, imposition, overreaching, unconscionable advantage, or other mark of direct and positive fraud.' 1 Story Eq. Juris, § 307; 2 Pom.Eq. Juris, § 960.

"The rule, even when the relation exists, is well expressed,--sustained apparently by numerous cases,--in 3 Am. & Eng.Ency.Law (2nd Ed.) 334, as follows: 'An attorney is under no actual incapacity, however, to deal

...