Woods v. Wright

Citation223 Ala. 173,134 So. 865
Decision Date28 May 1931
Docket Number7 Div. 15.
PartiesWOODS ET AL. v. WRIGHT.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; W. B. Merrill, Judge.

Bill to set aside deeds by Mrs. S. P. Wright against M. C. Woods and others. From a decree overruling demurrers to the bill respondents appeal.

Reversed rendered, and remanded.

Young &amp Longshore, of Anniston, for appellants.

Blackmon & Carter, of Anniston, for appellee.

BROWN J.

The bill in this case was filed by the appellee against the appellants to set aside two deeds made by her to her daughters, conveying to each certain interests in two separate tracts or parcels of land, on the ground that the execution of said deeds was procured by her said daughters, by fraud or through the exercise of undue influence.

The deeds were executed and delivered on the 11th day of January, 1917, on a recited consideration of "the sum of one dollar to me in hand paid *** the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, and for divers other good and valuable consideration to me herein moving." (Italics supplied.)

The bill was filed on the 29th of April, 1930, after the death of one of the grantees in March, 1922, and more than thirteen years after the execution of said deeds.

While the bill alleges fraud in general terms, it also alleges that "said deeds were made in consideration of an agreement between complainant and the said respondents, Nebraska Woods and Georgia V. Cochran, that they would support the grantor during the remainder of her life," without alleging that said agreement to support the grantor was entered into with the fraudulent purpose on the part of the grantees not to comply therewith, and that the same has not been kept.

The bill also avers that "the deeds were procured by coercion and undue influence, fraudulently exerted over her by the said Georgia V. Cochran and Nebraska Woods," etc.

While the bill avers that the complainant was suffering from an illness at the time the deeds were executed, so far as appears, it was temporary, and nothing is alleged to excuse the laches which appears on the face of the bill.

The deeds sought to be canceled were executed prior to the adoption of the Code of 1923, in which section 8046 first appeared as part of the law of the state, and the equity of the bill and the sufficiency of its averments must be determined, without regard to the provisions of that section. Thompson v. Lee, 216 Ala. 493, 113 So. 313; Cox v. Hutto, 216 Ala. 232, 113 So. 40.

The principles applicable were fully stated in Johnson v. Chamblee, 202 Ala. 525, 81 So. 27; that is, "equity may grant relief by canceling the deed of an aged person who, in consideration of promise of support, has conveyed his property to promisor, on account of promisor's fraud in intending not to furnish support, and in failing to do so, whether consideration of support be considered a condition precedent or subsequent, or no condition, but as a mere covenant; the legal remedy being inadequate." (Italics supplied.)

Another familiar doctrine applicable to the case presented on the record is that nothing can call into activity the powers of a court of equity except conscience, good faith, and a reasonable diligence. Where these are wanting, the court is passive and will leave the parties where it finds them. 10 R. C. L. 395, § 142; Gordon's Adm'r v. Ross and Wife, 63 Ala. 363.

Laches, where it appears on the face of the bill, goes to the foundation of the complainant's right to relief, and may be invoked by demurrer to the bill. Walshe v. Dwight Mfg. Co., 178 Ala. 310, 59 So. 630; Lovelace v. Hutchinson, 106 Ala. 417, 17 So. 623.

The delay on the part of the complainant for more than thirteen years, in view of the death of one of the parties to the transaction who is charged with participating in the fraud in the absence of facts sufficient to excuse more prompt action, is sufficient to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Bush v. Greer
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • December 2, 1937
    ...175, 145 So. 472; Cox v. Hutto, 216 Ala. 232, 113 So. 40; Bank of Hartford v. Buffalow, 217 Ala. 583, 117 So. 183; Woods v. Wright, 223 Ala. 173, 134 So. 865; Lewis v. Owen, 231 Ala. 480, 165 So. 229; v. Sipsey Coal Co., 218 Ala. 296, 118 So. 513. We have considered the several matters urge......
  • Lewis v. Owen, 4 Div. 858
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • November 14, 1935
    ... ... 525, 81 So. 27; Russell v ... Carver, 208 Ala. 219, 94 So. 128; Hyman v. Langston, 210 ... Ala. 509, 98 So. 564." ... In ... Woods et al. v. Wright, 223 Ala. 173, 174, 134 So ... 865, 866, the conveyance was before the statute, and the ... consideration thus stated to be " ... ...
  • Phillips v. Phillips
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 18, 1931
    ...The delay for thirteen years and the death of one of the parties to the fraud, in the absence of excusing facts, barred relief in Woods v. Wright, supra; a delay of years in Howle v. North Birmingham Land Co., 95 Ala. 389, 11 So. 15, in suit for rescission was denied for such delay; sixteen......
  • Bank of Columbia v. McElroy
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • December 19, 1935
    ... ... owners, and having the rights of the appellants adjudicated ... and determined Walshe v. Dwight Mfg. Co., 178 Ala ... 310, 59 So. 630; Woods et al. v. Wright, 223 Ala ... 173, 134 So. 865; Richter v. Noll et al., 128 Ala ... 198, 30 So. 740 ... The ... bill was not without ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT