Zeigler v. Zeigler

• Decision Date: 21 January 1913
• Citation: 180 Ala. 246,60 So. 810
• Parties: ZEIGLER v. ZEIGLER ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

60 So. 810

180 Ala. 246

ZEIGLER v. ZEIGLER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 21, 1913

Appeal from Circuit Court, Autauga County; W. W. Pearson, Judge.

Bill by Sarah M. Zeigler against William J. Zeigler and others to divest title and vest same fully and completely in the complainant. From a decree overruling demurrers to the bill respondents appeal. Affirmed.

The case made by the bill is that about 30 years ago complainant married Henry S. Zeigler, and that complainant and Henry S Zeigler lived together as man and wife until the death of said Henry S. Zeigler, which occurred during the year 1910 that Henry S. Zeigler left an estate, which was solvent; that during the time of their married life complainant became possessed of a separate estate, which was money given to her by her father; that she negotiated for and purchased a certain piece of land in Autauga county, containing 320 acres, for which she paid $400, but by inadvertence oversight, and mistake the deed, which was executed October 10, 1883, was made in the name of her husband, Henry S Zeigler; that there was another tract of land, which was described, in which she owned a one-half interest, as is shown by a deed made by Dora A. Smith to H. S. and Sallie M. Zeigler, under date of March 4, 1882, conveying a one-half interest. Complainant avers that at the time of the execution of said deed she already owned a one-half interest, and that she purchased the other half, and paid the consideration for the same, out of money belonging to her separate estate, but that by mistake, oversight, or inadvertence the deed was made to her and her husband jointly, instead of to complainant. The third paragraph is as follows: "That during the life of complainant's husband, Henry S. Zeigler, he never denied that it was an error in each of said deeds in making him the grantee, but that, on the contrary, he admitted it was an error, and always assessed said lands for taxes in the name of H. S. Zeigler as agent." The demurrers raise the question of staleness of demand, prescription, and the statute of limitation; that the bill seeks to establish a parol trust in real estate; that it is not plain whether complainant is seeking the reformation of the instrument or the enforcement of a resulting trust; that it does not appear what amount of complainant's money was used in the purchase, and that, with full knowledge of the taking of the title in the husband, it was ratified by the complainant; and that there was no equity in the bill.

Knox, Acker, Dixon & Sterne, of Talladega, for appellants.

William E. Fort, of Birmingham, and Eugene Ballard, of Prattville, for appellee.

DE GRAFFENRIED, J.

It is an elementary rule of pleading that on demurrer the allegations of a plea are to be taken most strongly against the pleader. A complainant who seeks relief in a court of equity is presumed to have stated in his bill of complaint his case as favorably to himself as his facts will justify, and for this reason, when the bill of complaint is demurred to, then, if the bill, when construed as above stated, fails to show a recoverable right and the defect in the bill is properly pointed out by the demurrer, the demurrer to the bill should be sustained. The language of the bill of complaint should, however, when the sufficiency of the bill of complaint is tested by demurrer, be given a fair and reasonable interpretation, and hypercriticism should not be indulged in.

The truth, said one of the greatest--perhaps the greatest--of Americans, is the shortest route between a fact and the statement of that fact, and, when a bill of complaint shows the facts of a case and those facts show a right of recovery, the bill is sufficient, although the language in which the facts are stated may be somewhat involved or somewhat obscure.

1. Construing the bill of complaint in this case as we have above indicated, we think that it reasonably appears that the complainant in the years 1882 and 1883 bought the lands described in the bill of complaint with her own money, and that she paid for those lands with her own money before the deeds which...