Street v. Alexander City Bank

• Decision Date: 15 May 1919
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 965
• Citation: 203 Ala. 97,82 So. 111
• Parties: STREET v. ALEXANDER CITY BANK.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

82 So. 111

203 Ala. 97

STREET v. ALEXANDER CITY BANK.

7 Div. 965

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 15, 1919

Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; Hugh D. Merrill, Judge.

Bill by Anne D. Street against the Alexander City Bank to have a deed declared a mortgage and then to have the mortgage declared void as being a mere security for the husband's debt, or in the alternative, to have a redemption from the mortgage upon doing equity in the premises. Decree for respondent, and complainant appeals. Affirmed.

The bill charges that on June 29, 1914, complainant's husband, J.C. Street, applied to the respondent bank for a loan of $5,000, which the said bank made to him, $3,000 of which was loaned to her said husband on security furnished by him, and the other $2,000 was loaned to him upon the execution by complainant and her husband, J.C. Street, of an instrument on the face purporting to be a deed conveying plaintiff's land, and upon the execution of which the said $5,000 was placed in said bank by the said bank to the credit of J.C. Street. Simultaneously therewith respondent executed to complainant a bond for title for the reconveyance of said land to her upon the payment of $2,000 on November 1 1914; that on the date of said deed and bond for title and the loaning of said money complainant executed to respondent a note for $2,000 payable November 1, 1914, for the money borrowed by her husband from respondent on the security of the deed mentioned, but that complainant does not remember whether her husband, J.C. Street, joined in executing said note with her; that on May 14, 1915, complainant paid the sum of $213.33 on said note, for which the respondent credited her as on May 19, 1914, as interest, charging her 12 per cent. per annum for the money. The answer admits that the transaction of the purchase was intended as a mortgage security, but denies that the loan of $2,000 was made to J.C Street, and asserts that it was in fact made to complainant exclusively. It also denies that credit was placed on the note on the basis of interest at 12 per cent. The answer further alleges that the respondent had before the suit offered to reconvey the property to complainant upon payment of the debt secured with 8 per cent. interest. On final hearing a decree was entered declaring the deed a mortgage security for complainant's own debt from which she could redeem by the payment of the amount shown to be due at 8 per cent. interest with an attorney's fee of $150 and the costs of the suit, which were taxed against her.

Riddle & Riddle, of Talladega, for appellant.

George A. Sorrell, of Alexander City, for appellee.

SOMERVILLE J.

Section 4497 of the Code provides that "the wife shall not, directly or indirectly, become the surety for the husband." "The statute is founded upon public policy which is to protect the wife's estate as against the influence of her husband or other person, or her own inclination, in respect to subjecting it to her husband's debts." Richardson v. Stephens, 122 Ala. 301 307, 25 So. 39, 41. It has been liberally construed and zealously applied by the courts for the accomplishment of its obvious design, as our numerous decisions will show. Lamkin v. Lovell, 176 Ala. 334, 58 So. 258; Hanchey v. Powell, 171 Ala. 597, 55 So. 97; Corinth Bk. & Tr. Co. v. King, 182 Ala. 403, 62 So. 704; Staples v. City Bk. &...