Troy Fertilizer Co. v. Prestwood

• Decision Date: 04 February 1897
• Citation: 116 Ala. 119,22 So. 262
• Parties: TROY FERTILIZER CO. ET AL. v. PRESTWOOD. [1]
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

22 So. 262

116 Ala. 119

TROY FERTILIZER CO. ET AL. v. PRESTWOOD. ^[1]

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 4, 1897

Appeal from chancery court, Pike county; Jere N. Williams Chancellor.

Bill by Georgia A. Prestwood against the Troy Fertilizer Company and others. A demurrer to the bill was overruled, and respondents appeal. Reversed.

The purposes of the bill and the facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Each of the respondents interposed a separate demurrer to the bill assigning therefor the following grounds: "(1) It is shown by said bill that the chancery and circuit courts Coffee county, Ala., have already taken jurisdiction of the subject-matter embraced in this bill, and of the parties thereto. (2) No reason is assigned why the chancery court of Coffee county has not the jurisdiction and the power to grant relief to this complainant which is sought in this bill. (3) Said bill seeks to remove from the title of complainant a cloud which is sought to be cast over said title by a suit pending in another jurisdiction, and which involves the validity of complainant's title. (4) The bill in this cause seeks to establish the title of complainant to the lands, which is already being assailed in another court which has jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the parties and there is no reason assigned why that court which has already acquired jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the parties cannot confirm the complainant's title, if she has any."

Upon the submission of the cause upon these demurrers, the chancellor adjudged that they were not well taken, and rendered a decree overruling them. From this decree the present appeal is prosecuted, and the same is here assigned as error.

Parks & Harmom, for appellants.

Hubbard & Hubbard, for appellee.

HARALSON J.

1. On the 19th November, 1891, F. M. Prestwood conveyed to his wife, for the recited consideration of $5,000, the tract of land described in the bill. On the 29th December, 1893, the Troy Fertilizer Company, in order to collect the notes of said F. M. Prestwood, which are described, filed its bill in Coffee chancery court, in which county the lands were situate, and where Prestwood and wife lived, against him and his wife, W. D. and Charles Henderson, and one Shiver, supposed to have some claim, the object of which bill was to condemn said lands by the decree of said chancery court, as the property of said F. M. Prestwood, to the payment of their claims against him,-consisting of three promissory notes, each dated the 6th March, 1893, two of them being for $480 each, one payable on the 1st of October, 1893, the other, on the 15th November, 1893, and the third note for $540, due the 1st of November, 1893,-on the ground, that the said conveyance of said lands by Prestwood to his wife was fraudulent and void, having been made to hinder, delay and defraud the creditors of said defendant. The bill is now pending and undetermined in said chancery court.

The bill in this case was filed by said Georgia A. Prestwood in the chancery court of Pike county on the 9th of April, 1895, against the Troy Fertilizer Company, and W. D. and Charles Henderson. It seeks, among other things, to enjoin that suit in the chancery court of Coffee county, and have the question of the validity of said deed,-whether it be void for fraud or not,-adjudicated by the chancery court of Pike county.

As between the appellant, the Troy Fertilizer Company, and Georgia A. Prestwood, the grantee in said deed, the subject-matter of the chancery suit in Coffee, is the identical subject-matter, so far as said parties are concerned, as that of the cause in Pike chancery court, and the purpose is the same in effect,-that, on the part of the Troy Fertilizer Company in the Coffee chancery court, to have said deed declared fraudulent and void, and that on the part of Georgia A. Prestwood, the grantee in said deed, in the Pike chancery court, to have it sustained as a bona fide, valid conveyance of the said lands to her. For this purpose, the chancery court of Coffee county, on the commencement of the said suit therein, acquired jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the parties in interest. The principle so well settled, that "where the jurisdiction of a court and the right of a plaintiff to prosecute in it, has once attached, that right cannot be arrested or taken away by proceedings in any other court," is directly applicable. Gay v. Iron Co., 94 Ala. 308, 11 So. 353; Hause v. Hause, 57 Ala. 265; Foster v. Napier, 73 Ala. 596; Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 624. The fact, that the chancery court of Coffee county had acquired jurisdiction of the same matter in a controversy between the same parties, in a suit between them therein pending when this bill was filed, appearing on the face of this bill, was sufficient objection to its maintenance, which objection was properly raised by demurrer. Story, Eq. Pl. § 488; Daniell, Ch. Pl. & Prac. p. 537, § 561.

2. The fact appears, that on the...