Seals v. Pheiffer
| Decision Date | 02 February 1887 |
| Citation | 1 So. 267,81 Ala. 518 |
| Parties | SEALS v. PHEIFFER and others. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from chancery court, Pike county.
Bill in equity to set aside conveyances of land as fraudulent and void.
This is the third appeal in this case. The others will be found reported in 75 Ala. 363, and 77 Ala. 278, respectively, where the facts are set out in detail. The same instruments are involved in the first case above, but not the same parties. The original bill was filed to set aside for fraud the deed of gift by S. J. Seals to his wife, bearing date June 17 1881, conveying to her certain property situated in the town of Troy, in this state, and to have the property conveyed by the deed sold for the payment of complainant's demand. The first amended bill incorporated the deed of the sheriff to defendant, embracing a part of the property in the deed of gift, with averments and prayer for redemption of all the property, and for an account and settlement by the assignee made under the general assignment of S. J. Seals. On appeal to this court (77 Ala. 278) the said bill was held to be multifarious, and repugnant to the original bill, the case was remanded, and the averments with regard to redemption and the assignee stricken out. After the former reversal, there was an amendment to the original bill in the trial court containing the averment that complainants were creditors having their claims existing at the time of the execution of the sheriff's deed. There was a demurrer to this amendment, which was overruled. This action of the court is assigned as error, among other matters.
M N. Carlisle and Parks & Son, for appellants.
Gardner & Wiley and P. O. Harper, contra.
The bill, as originally framed, was filed for the double purpose of assailing for fraud two conveyances made by one S. J Seals, deceased,-the one a deed of gift conveying certain lands to his wife, the appellant; and the other a general assignment made to a trustee for the benefit of named creditors. The bill being held to be multifarious by reason of uniting two separate and distinct matters in the same suit, it was amended by striking out all that portion relating to the assignment. If the case had rested here, the complainants, as creditors of S. J. Seals' estate, would certainly have been entitled to the relief claimed, on proof of the allegations of the bill. Seals v. Robinson, 75 Ala. 363; Seals v. Pheiffer, 77 Ala. 278. The answer of the defendant, Mrs. Seals, however, disclosed the existence in her hands of a sheriff's deed, which, if valid, conferred on her a title...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rountree v. Satterfield
...bill, though between the same parties, was held a defect in the bill in the following cases: Colburn v. Broughton, 9 Ala. 351, Seals v. Pheiffer, 81 Ala. 518, Tillman v. Thomas, 87 Ala. 321, Banks v. Speers, 103 Ala. 436, Prickett v. Prickett, 147 Ala. 494, and was recognized by dictum ofte......
-
Anderton v. Hiter
...declare them a general assignment, was set at rest by the Code of 1907, section 3095, which changed the rule stated in Seals v. Pheiffer, 81 Ala. 518, 1 So. 267, Green & Gay v. Wright, Williams & Wadley, 160 Ala. 476, 49 So. 320, and those which they followed. Such effect of the change in t......
-
Lambert v. Anderson
...declare them a general assignment, was set at rest by the Code of 1907, section 3095, which changed the rule stated in Seals v. Pheiffer, 81 Ala. 518, 1 So. 267, Green & Gay v. Wright, Williams & Wadley, 160 Ala. 476, 49 So. 320, and those which they followed. Such effect of the change in t......
-
Alabama Terminal & Improvement Co. v. Hall
...did not, supplying or correcting its deficiencies was the proper office of an amendment. Prickett v. Sibert, 75 Ala. 315; Seals v. Pheiffer, 81 Ala. 518, 1 So. 267." Fite v. Kennamer, 90 Ala. 470, 473, 7 So. In Ingraham v. Foster, 31 Ala. 132, it is said: "To make an amendment improper, it ......