Sieben v. Torrey
| Decision Date | 06 October 1949 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 870. |
| Citation | 42 So.2d 621,252 Ala. 675 |
| Parties | SIEBEN v. TORREY et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 17, 1949.
H A. Entrekin, of Cullman, for appellant.
Mitchell & Galin, of Cullman, for appellees.
The appeal brings up for review a decree of the circuit court in equity confirming a sale of land for division among the joint owners. The decree is challenged on the ground of inadequacy of price for which the land sold.
The principal grounds advanced for setting aside the decree are (1) The sale was conducted under such circumstances of fraud or unfairness toward the owners as to require its excision and (2) the price was so grossly inadequate and disproportionate to the real value of the land as to be manifestly unconscionable and thus requiring a disaffirmance. We are impelled to the conclusion that the hearing, ore tenus, before the trial judge failed to establish, with any degree of certainty, either ground.
On review here it is to be remembered that we do not weigh the evidence as regards its reasonably satisfying effect on the issue tendered, but in considering it we indulge all favorable presumptions to sustain the trial court's conclusion and will not disturb it unless palpably erroneous or manifestly unjust. Jennings v. Jennings, 250 Ala. 130(10), 33 So.2d 251; Cook v. Benton, 250 Ala. 259(3), 33 So.2d 877; Forest Hill Corp. v. Latter & Blum, 249 Ala. 23(6, 7), 29 So.2d 298. Approaching a decision with this guiding rule, it will be made evident the decree must stand.
As regards the first ground the mere fact that the purchase was for a club, many members of which were prominent citizens of the county, interested in the purchase and some of whom sought to influence persons to withhold any proffer of a higher bid in the event of a resale of the property, does not show ony fraud or unfairness transacted by them in connection with the original sale. It may be considered as a circumstance to afford an unfavorable inference, but the undisputed testimony was adverse to such an inference, which testimony the court could and did credit. He heard and saw the witnesses who so testified and was better advantaged to appraise the verities of the situation than are we. So according that decision the favorable presumption due under the stated rule, we must hold the asserted ground untenable.
On the question of the second ground (inadequacy of price), we observe that the sale price was $1,800 and there was some evidence that this was reasonable and not greatly disproportionate to the real value of the property. To sustain the ground of inadequacy of price, appellant introduced the testimony of some witnesses to the effect that the value of the land was as much as $3,000 (though others placed the value much lower); and the appellant, who did not bid at the sale and, from aught appearing exerted no activity until afterward, posted an offer to bid $2,750 should the court disaffirm and order a resale. Our view is that the court is also due to be sustained in overruling this ground. Mere inadequacy of price alone does not justify a disaffirmance of the sale and we cannot say that the price was so disproportionate to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alabama Power Co. v. Scholz
...the circumstances outlined above, although all of his testimony was not strictly in the nature of rebuttal testimony. In Sieben v. Torrey, 252 Ala. 675, 42 So.2d 621, we '* * * And the acceptance or rejection of evidence not strictly in rebuttal is within the sound discretion of the trial c......
-
Hogan v. Carter
...is solely to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. Cox v. Cox, 267 Ala. 372, 102 So.2d 23 (1958); Sieben v. Torrey, 252 Ala. 675, 42 So.2d 621 (1949). We can find an abuse of discretion only if the principle relied upon by the majority, when applied to the particular fact......
-
Cox v. Cox, 6 Div. 892
...a judicial sale under the provisions of § 561 is one to be resolved in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion. Sieben v. Torrey, 252 Ala. 675, 677, 42 So.2d 621; De Loach v. White, 202 Ala. 429, 430, 80 So. 813; Danforth v. Burchfield, 201 Ala. 550, 551, 78 So. 904. See, also, 30A Am.J......
-
Samuel v. Mallory
...756 (Ala.1987); Jones v. Bridges, 336 So.2d 1113 (Ala.1976); Martin v. Jones, 268 Ala. 286, 105 So.2d 860 (1958); Sieben v. Torrey, 252 Ala. 675, 42 So.2d 621 (1949); Campbell v. Carter, 248 Ala. 294, 27 So.2d 490 This Court, in Sieben v. Torrey, supra, in considering the refusal of a trial......