West Point Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Allen

• Decision Date: 30 May 1905
• Citation: West Point Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Allen, 143 Ala. 547, 39 So. 351 (Ala. 1905)
• Parties: WEST POINT MIN. & MFG. CO. ET AL. v. ALLEN.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

39 So. 351

143 Ala. 547

WEST POINT MIN. & MFG. CO. ET AL. v. ALLEN.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 30, 1905

Appeal from Chancery Court, Lauderdale County; Wm. H. Simpson Chancellor.

"To be officially reported."

Bill by Susan B. Allen against the West Point Mining & Manufacturing Company and another. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill, defendants appeal. Reversed.

Simpson & Jones, for appellants.

Emmett E. O'Neal and Thomas R. Roulhac, for appellee.

McCLELLAN C.J.

The bill in this cause was filed by a judgment creditor of the West Point Mining & Manufacturing Company, a corporation under the laws of Alabama, to annul a deed of trust executed by it in this state to the Florence Loan & Trust Company also an Alabama corporation, to secure all of its creditors upon the ground that the conveyance was fraudulent as to creditors. The property conveyed by the deed of trust consisting of real estate and personal property appurtenant thereto, is situated in the state of Tennessee. The deed of trust was foreclosed by the trustees in this state under power of sale therein, and the property was ultimately conveyed to the United States Iron Company, a corporation under the laws of the state of New Jersey, by whom it is now held. The United States Iron Company demurred to the bill upon the ground that the property conveyed by the deed of trust is situated in the state of Tennessee. From the decree overruling the demurrer, this appeal is taken.

In Bump on Fraudulent Conveyances, p. 498, it is said: "The courts of one state have no jurisdiction or authority to set aside a fraudulent conveyance of land situate in another state." In the case of Lide v. Parker's Ex'r, 60 Ala. 165, construing section 3886 of the Code of 1876, authorizing a creditor without a lien to file a bill in chancery to subject to the payment of his debt any property fraudulently conveyed by the debtor, it was held that the property referred to by the statute was property within the state of Alabama. The court said: "It cannot be presumed that the Legislature meant to give to its enactment, if it could do so, an extraterritorial operation or to authorize courts of equity here, through their power over parties within their judisdiction, to appropriate real and personal property situated in another state for the payment of simple contract creditors, in Alabama or elsewhere." Section 3886 of the Code of 1876 was adopted into the Code of 1886, and readopted into the Code of 1896. As has been repeatedly...