Wood v. Pebbles

• Decision Date: 13 April 1899
• Citation: 121 Ala. 100,25 So. 723
• Parties: WOOD ET AL. v. PEBBLES ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

25 So. 723

121 Ala. 100

WOOD ET AL. v. PEBBLES ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 13, 1899

Appeal from chancery court, Walker county; Thomas Cobbs, Chancellor.

Bill by Riley Pebbles & Co. and others against William Wood & Son and others. From a decree for complainants, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

H. L Wathington, for appellants.

Appling & McGuire, for appellees.

TYSON J.

Appellees who were judgment creditors of William Wood & Son, filed their bill against them and the other appellants seeking to have declared fraudulent certain conveyances held by some of the respondents to certain described property. It was averred in the bill that the said Wood & Son, and the individual members composing it, were insolvent at the date of the filing of the bill, and had been for a long time prior thereto, and were insolvent when the various conveyances attacked were made. It was also shown by the bill that the indebtedness to the complainants existed at the date of the execution of the several conveyances, and that all the respondents were either members of the family of William Wood, or near relatives, except the respondent Roddam. The bill further shows that suits were commenced by the complainants against William Wood and his son upon their respective claims during the month of January, 1894, and obtained their judgments in the month of February, 1895, and during the pendency of these suits the conveyances to each of the respondents were executed, except those held by Hannah Wood, wife of William Wood. All of the conveyances, except those held by Hannah Wood, were made by William Wood directly to the respondents holding them. As to these, the bill alleges there was no consideration paid by the respective respondents for the property conveyed, notwithstanding the recital therein of the payment of a certain sum of money. As to the two conveyances under which Hannah Wood claims title to certain property, from one Adeline Burton and husband, the bill alleges that her husband, William Wood, furnished the consideration which was paid to Mrs. Burton for the property and had the deeds made to his wife. Each of the respondents filed separate answers, in which they denied there was any fraud; and all of them alleged in their answers, except Hannah Wood, that William Wood executed to each of them the conveyances to pay an antecedent debt which he owed, to the amount of the consideration recited in the conveyance. Hannah Wood, in her answer, alleges that as to the conveyance made to her of date December 16, 1892, by her son, who had obtained the title from Mrs. Adeline Burton on the 4th day of November, 1892, she gave the money, to wit, $150, to her son to make the purchase for her, and by mistake the deed was made by Mrs. Burton to him, and in order to correct this mistake her son executed the conveyance to her. She nowhere avers where she got the money that she sent by her son to Mrs. Burton. As to the other conveyance from Mrs. Burton, under which she held certain property, her answer alleges that her husband made the contract of purchase as her agent, and that her money paid for the property, to wit, the $350, the recited consideration of the deed. As to all of the conveyances under the allegations of the bill, and the averments of the answers of each of the respondents, except, perhaps, the first conveyance to the respondent Hannah Wood, there can be no sort of doubt that the burden of proof was upon the respondents to establish a valuable and adequate consideration. Calhoun v. Hannan, 87 Ala. 277, 6 So. 291; Schall v. Weil, 103 Ala. 411, 15 So. 829; Caldwell v. Pollak, 91 Ala. 353, 8 So. 546; Moore v. Penn, 95 Ala. 200, 10 So. 343; Buford v. Shannon, 95 Ala. 205, 10 So. 263. And, when the wife or other relative is the grantee in the conveyance, stricter and clearer proof is required. Robinson v. Moseley, 93 Ala. 70, 9 So. 372; Bank v. Smith, 93 Ala. 97, 9 So. 548; Sides v. Scharff, 93 Ala. 106, 9 So. 228; Lammons v. Allen, 88 Ala. 417, 6 So. 915; Wedgworth v. Wedgworth, 84 Ala. 274, 4 So. 149. And where the conveyance is executed to the wife by a third person, at the instance of the husband, the onus is upon her to clearly and fully prove that she paid for the property with her separate funds. Bangs v. Edwards, 88 Ala. 382, 6 So. 764. When the conveyances by the insolvent debtor are made to pay an antecedent debt claimed by the grantee against him, this fact raises a presumption of unfairness and mala fides, and casts upon the debtor, as between him and creditors who attack the conveyance for fraud, the onus of showing that the sale was fair, and made in good faith. Calhoun v. Hannan, supra.

Did the respondents sustain this burden of proof? In Robinson v Mosely, supra, it is said: "To lift such burden, affirmative averment of the facts relied on as constituting the consideration is essential, as convincing proof of their existence. The laboring oar was upon the defendant, not simply to deny the negative averment that there was no consideration, but to state the affirmative fact that there was such...