Warren v. Crow
| Decision Date | 10 April 1919 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 993 |
| Citation | 81 So. 636,202 Ala. 680 |
| Parties | WARREN et ux. v. CROW. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, De Kalb County; W.W. Haralson, Judge.
Suit by J.O. Crow against M.W. Warren and wife, in which defendants procured transfer of case to equity side of the court and were ordered to file bill of complaint, to which plaintiff filed cross-bill. From decree rendered, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Isbell & Scott, of Ft. Payne, for appellants.
Davis & Baker, of Ft. Payne, for appellee.
When a defendant at law procures a transfer of his case to the equity side of the court, pursuant to the Act of September 28, 1915 (Gen.Acts 1915, pp. 830-832), in order to make available an equitable defense, it is contemplated that the plaintiff shall file a new or amended complaint in conformity with the chancery practice, and that the defendant shall then present his defense by plea or answer as in chancery. See Peebles v. Bank of Pollard, 78 So. 872.
That would have been the appropriate procedure here; but there was manifestly no prejudice to the defendants at law in requiring them to become complainants on the equity side, since their burden of allegation and proof was the same in either case.
We need not determine whether any ground of demurrer to the original bill was well taken, for the amendment bringing in the new parties was not material to the result; nor did the amendment charging, "in terms," that respondent had notice or knowledge of complainants' rights in the land when he bought at sheriff's sale, add anything to complainants' burden of proof, since that burden was fully met by proving their already alleged possession of the land under circumstances which imparted constructive notice to respondent of their claim to the lands.
If there was error in the ruling on demurrer, it was therefore error without any possible injury.
The evidence showed that complainants' title was equitable only, and, prima facie, superior to respondent's subsequently acquired legal title, by reason of the fact that complainants were in open possession of the lands, under claim of right, at the time when the lien of respondent's judgment attached. But respondent's cross-bill attacked complainants' purchase as simulated and fraudulent, and the evidence justified the finding of the trial court--whether the finding was based upon that issue or not--that the purchase was fraudulent, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stover v. Hill
... ... Moore (Ala ... Sup.) 94 So. 57, overruling Peebles v. Bank of ... Pollard, 201 Ala. 518, 78 So. 872; Warren v ... Crow, 202 Ala. 680, 81 So. 636. No prejudicial error ... results to an appellant when the burden of allegata et ... probata as to equitable ... ...
-
Fox v. Webb, 1 Div. 745
...because it does not appear that the error complained of has injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. Warren v. Crow, 202 Ala. 680, 81 So. 636; Supreme Court Rule 45, Code of 1940, Title 7, In this case Fox has received an award of the entire amount he asked for but due ......
-
Carey v. Hart
...the theory, evidently, that appellant was the actor in the court of equity (this by reason of what was said in Peebles v. Bank and Warren v. Crow, supra), the court applied the rule of Mathews v. Carroll Mercantile Co., 195 Ala. 501, 70 So. 143, and the cases there cited, which is, that whe......
- Brown v. Thomas