Stanfill v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 13 April 1909
• Citation: 49 So. 223,159 Ala. 546
• Parties: STANFILL ET AL. v. JOHNSON.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

49 So. 223

159 Ala. 546

STANFILL ET AL. v. JOHNSON.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 13, 1909

Appeal from City Court of Selma; J. W. Mabry, Judge.

Action by Lewis Johnson against Norman S. Stanfill and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

H. F Reese and Pettus, Jeffries & Pettus, for appellants.

J. C Compton and Mallory & Mallory, for appellee.

SIMPSON J.

The bill was filed by the appellee to quiet title under the statute. The complainant is the surviving husband of Susan Johnson, who was the adopted daughter of John Stanfill deceased. John Stanfill had no children. The respondents are collateral heirs at law of said John Stanfill, and the equity of the bill depends upon the validity of a deed made by said John Stanfill in November, 1898, conveying the property in question to said Susan Johnson. The respondents present the question of the validity of said bill by pleas and by answers and cross-bill, claiming that said deed is invalid because of the mental incapacity of said John Stanfill and because of undue influence.

Appellants' counsel commences his brief with the proposition that transactions between persons occupying fiduciary relations are presumptively invalid, and (without proof of undue influence) the burden is upon the person receiving the benefit to prove affirmatively good faith, full knowledge independent consent, etc., citing Harraway v. Harraway, 136 Ala. 499, 34 So. 836, Noble v. Moses Bros., 81 Ala. 530, 1 So. 217, 60 Am. Rep. 175, and 2 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. § 957. This principle does not apply where the donor or grantor is the dominant party, and in a transaction between a parent and child the parent is presumed to be the dominant party. So, where a deed is made by a parent to a child, whether natural or adopted, the burden rests upon the party assailing it to prove incapacity or undue influence. Sanders v. Gurley (Ala.) 44 So. 1022; Hutcheson v. Bibb et al., 142 Ala. 586, 38 So. 754; McLeod et al. v. McLeod, 145 Ala. 269, 273, 40 So. 414, 117 Am. St. Rep. 41.

Aside from the fact that said John Stanfill resided in the house with the donee, Sue Johnson, and her husband, no effort is made to prove that said Sue Johnson had acquired such an influence over and control of said Stanfill as to become the dominant party, so the only contention is as to his mental capacity. The law presumes every one to be sane until the contrary is proved; and it is unsoundness, and incapacity to understand the business transacted, as contradistinguished from mere weakness, which must be proved, in order to avoid a conveyance. White v. Farley, 81 Ala. 563, 8 So. 215; Rawdon v. Rawdon, 28 Ala. 565, 567; Stubbs v. Houston, 33 Ala. 555, 567; In re Carmichael, 36 Ala. 515, 522; Kennedy et al. v. Marrast et al., 46 Ala. 161, 168; Schieffelin v. Schieffelin,

127 Ala 16, 37, 28 So. 687; Taylor v. Kelly, 31 Ala. 59, 72, 68 Am. Dec. 150; Knox v. Knox, 95 Ala. 495, 503, 11 So. 125, 36 Am....