Zaner v. Thrower
Decision Date | 27 November 1919 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 924 |
Citation | 203 Ala. 650,84 So. 820 |
Parties | ZANER et al. v. THROWER et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 5, 1920
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cleburne County; A.H. Alston, Judge.
Bill by George Zaner and others against A.B. Thrower and others for review or to cancel a decree of sale as a cloud on complainants' title. From a decree sustaining demurrers to the bill, the complainants appeal. Affirmed.
As alleged in the bill in the present case, the defendant Margaret E. Green is the daughter of Jane Zaner, and plaintiffs are the wife and children of Bailey Zaner, a son of Jane Zaner. Jane Zaner and her husband conveyed land to Bailey Zaner and his brother, which the grantees subsequently divided. Margaret E. Green executed a deed to Bailey Zaner on a recited consideration of $400, purporting to convey her interest in such land. It seems that notes were executed to her by Bailey Zaner, but it is alleged that she had no interest and that the notes were without consideration. She brought suit against W.C. McMahan, administrator of Bailey Zaner, and the present plaintiffs, seeking to enforce a vendor's lien alleged to have arisen in her favor by reason of such conveyance, claiming a balance due of $300 and asking that the land be sold. A decree was rendered in her favor, the land was sold, and the present bill is to review and set aside the proceedings and decree in that suit and the sale of the land. The bill alleges that in the former suit the cause was submitted for final decree on pleading and proof on April 29, 1915, and on May 22, 1915, the chancellor rendered a final decree in the cause at Anniston, Calhoun county, Ala. The decree shows that it was so rendered at Anniston, and not at Heflin, the place appointed for the holding of the chancery courts of Cleburne county. The original bill attacked the proceedings in the former suit on various grounds. An amendment attacks them on the further ground that the decree of sale and decree confirming the register's report of sale are each void, because rendered at Anniston, Ala., a place other than the place where the chancery court of Cleburne county is by law required or authorized to be held.
R.B Kelly, of Birmingham, and T.A. Johnson, of Heflin, for appellants.
W.B Merrill, of Heflin, for appellees.
The appeal is from a decree sustaining demurrer to the original bill of review or to cancel a decree of sale and proceedings thereunder as a cloud on complainants' title. Two questions are presented: (1) Whether the final decree of sale of said land by the chancery court, of date May 21, 1915, was void; and (2) whether in the record and proceedings of the chancery court for said sale there is an error of law apparent upon the record that would authorize the circuit court, in equity, to set aside said former decree and proceedings by the chancery court for the sale of the land.
Under the statute, application to file bills of review must be presented to the court within three years after the rendition of the decree, except in cases of infants and persons of unsound mind, who may apply within three years after the termination of disability. Code 1907, § 3178; Manegold v Beavan, 189 Ala. 241, 66 So. 448; Caller v. Shields, 2 Stew. & P. 417, 427; Stuart, Trustee, v. Strickland, 83 So. 600.
In a bill of review the decree will be referred to the pleading and other proceeding had in the cause. When so considered, if it is apparent that the court has declared and enforced an erroneous conclusion of law, affecting the rights of the parties, such a bill will be maintained. Error other than this, intervening in the regular or orderly procedure of the cause, must be corrected by appeal, or by other appropriate action in that nature. Jordan v. Hardie, 131 Ala. 72, 76, 31 So. 504; Vary v. Thompson, 168 Ala. 367, 370, 52 So. 951; McCall v. McCurdy, supra.
All the parties to the chancery proceedings and the purchaser at such sale are made parties to the instant bill. There is no prayer that the purchaser be restored to his former status quo. It may be that in the event of recovery by complainants, under the general prayer of the bill, an appropriate decree would afford such purchasers such relief as the facts may warrant and the circumstances of the parties may permit.
The decree further directed the register to pay, out of the proceeds of the sale, the court costs, and then apply the balance to the payment of said $684.20, with interest, and after paying said sums, if there is a surplus, the register will hold the same subject to the further orders of the court; that the register will file his report of said sale as soon as practicable, the same to remain on file for ten days, during which time objections and exceptions may be filed, and after the expiration of said time, The indorsements appearing of record on the decree are: The decree and subsequent orders will be presumed to have been duly enrolled by the register on the minutes of that court in Cleburne county, at Heflin, Ala., pursuant to law, in the state of the abridged record presented as by agreement of counsel, of date December 4, 1917.
This statutory provision finding place in the Code of 1852 as section 3006, with slight modifications not here material, has been embraced in each subsequent Code. Rule 78, governing practice in the chancery court (Code 1907, p. 1552), is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lewis v. Martin
... ... before that "determination" becomes the judgment, ... decree or order thereof (3 Black. Com. 24; Zaner v ... Thrower, 203 Ala. 650, 653, 84 So. 820; Hudson, ... Adm'r. v. Hudson, Adm'r, supra; Campbell v ... Beyers, 189 Ala. 307, 313, 66 So ... ...
-
Williams v. Knight, 8 Div. 731
... ... application "no order must be made on said ... petition." Vol. 4, Code 1923, p. 932, rule 81; Johnson ... v. Johnson, supra; Zaner et al. v. Thrower et al., ... 203 Ala. 650, 84 So. 820 ... The ... final decree was rendered on August 29, 1935; appeal and ... ...
-
Stover v. Hill
... ... last Saturday in June preceding the filing of the motion in ... July. Acts 1915, p. 707; Zaner v. Thrower, 203 Ala ... 650, 653, 84 So. 820. The motion for rehearing or ... reinstatement was not made within the term of the rendition ... of ... ...
-
Whitaker v. Kennamer
...Adm'r, v. Hudson, Adm'r, 20 Ala. 284; Dabney v. Mitchell, 54 Ala. 198; Campbell v. Beyers, 189 Ala. 307, 313, 66 So. 651; Zaner v. Thrower, 203 Ala. 650, 84 So. 820; Lewis v. Martin, 210 Ala. 401, 98 So. 635. It is true that a court of record speaks through its required records, in the abse......