Stephens v. Reginstein

• Decision Date: 12 June 1890
• Citation: 89 Ala. 561,8 So. 68
• Parties: STEPHENS v. REGINSTEIN ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

8 So. 68

89 Ala. 561

STEPHENS v. REGINSTEIN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 12, 1890

Appeal from circuit court, Pike county; JOHN P. HUBBARD, Judge.

A statutory claim suit for the trial of the right of property which had been levied on under an attachment issued at the suit of the appellees against one T. A. Stephens. After the levy of the said attachment, the appellant, B. F. Stephens interposed a claim to the said property, and issue was joined on said claim between him and the plaintiffs in attachment. The claimant's claim to said property was based upon a purchase of said property from the defendant in attachment. The circumstances attendant upon said sale are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of this court. Upon the trial of said claim suit, the issues were found in favor of the plaintiffs in attachment. The claimant now appeals.

Gardner & Wiley, for appellant.

STONE C.J.

The bill of exceptions in this record affirms that it contains all the evidence. On the question which we consider decisive of the case the testimony comes from the claimant, appellant here, and it is free from conflict. One of the terms of the sale from T. A. Stephens, the debtor, to B. F. Stephens, the claimant, was that the business should be continued in the name of said B. F., the purchaser, and that T. A. Stephens the failing debtor, should be placed in control and management of it at a monthly salary of $40. B. F. Stephens, the purchaser, knew his brother T. A. Stephens was insolvent, and that the purpose of the sale was to enable him to prefer certain creditors, of whom his mother was one. The sale was for money. One of the direct results of the sale was that by the agreement the failing debtor secured to himself a paying employment, which, but for the sale and agreement, he would not have had. This was a benefit secured to him which rendered the transaction fraudulent as to that part of the property conveyed which was in excess of the debtor's exemptions. McDowell v. Steele, 87 Ala. 493, 6 South. Rep. 288, and authorities cited; Knowles v. Street, 87 Ala. 357, 6 South. Rep. 273.

The recovery in this case was only for the excess above T. A Stephens' exemptions, and to that extent the plaintiff was clearly entitled to a verdict. The general charge in favor of plaintiffs, if asked, should have been given, which would have secured to them the precise recovery they obtained. Under each circumstances, we will...