Williams v. Pool, 6 Div. 100

• Decision Date: 27 May 1937
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 100
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. POOL et ux.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

174 So. 789

234 Ala. 242

WILLIAMS v. POOL et ux.

6 Div. 100

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 27, 1937

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; E.M. Creel, Judge.

Creditor's bill by J.H. Williams, as superintendent of banks of the state of Alabama, liquidating the Southern Bank & Trust Company, against J.L. Pool and Mary Ella (Mrs. J.L.) Pool. From a decree sustaining a demurrer to the bill, complainant appeals.

Affirmed.

Amzi G Barber and Hugh Barber, both of Birmingham, for appellant.

Harsh Harsh & Hare, of Birmingham, for appellees.

KNIGHT Justice.

Bill by appellant, complainant in the court below, seeking to have a certain deed of conveyance executed by J.L. Pool, one of the appellees, to his wife, declared fraudulent and void, as against the demand and indebtedness due and owing, at the time of the execution of the conveyance, to the Southern Bank & Trust Company, a state banking institution now in liquidation.

The cause is here on appeal by the complainant from a decree sustaining the demurrers of the respondents to the bill.

While the bill charges in terms that the property conveyed by the debtor to his wife constituted substantially all of the debtor's "visible assets," and that the conveyance was made to hinder, delay, or defraud the creditors of the debtor, this averment was but a statement of the conclusion of the pleader, and standing alone would be manifestly insufficient. However, it is sought to sustain this conclusion by the following averment of facts:

"Complainant further shows and represents unto this court that said conveyance was voluntary and that said consideration recited in said deed was inadequate and insufficient, or was false, simulated and fictitious."

A chain can be no stronger than its weakest link.

Had the averment been that the conveyance was voluntary, or that the recited consideration was false, simulated, or fictitious, we would hold it sufficient, but such is not the case. While it is averred that the conveyance "was voluntary," yet coupled with this was the further or qualifying statement "and that the said consideration recited in said conveyance was inadequate and insufficient." A conveyance is not voluntary, if there was, in fact, some real consideration to support it, though such consideration may have been inadequate or insufficient.

If the complainant, or the Southern Bank & Trust Company, to whose rights the complainant succeeded, was...