Brock & Spight v. Oliver

43 So. 357, 149 Ala. 93, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 306
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedMarch 2, 1907
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 43 So. 357 (Brock & Spight v. Oliver) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brock & Spight v. Oliver, 43 So. 357, 149 Ala. 93, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 306 (Ala. 1907).

Opinion

ANDERSON, J. —

The sole purpose of this bill is to have certain payments made by the bankrupt declared preferential and void under the bankrupt act. The [96]*96chancery court, is without jurisdiction’ to grant relief against a mere preference at the instance of one who has not exhausted his remedy at law. — Redd v. Wallace, 145 Ala. 209, 40 South. 407. The hill does not bring this case within the influence of section 818 of the Code of 1896, as it in no sense seeks to set aside a fraudulent conveyance or transfer. It does aver that a mortgage was fraudulently given, but also shows that the mortgage was fully paid and discharged before the bill was filed, and is therefore functus officio.

The chancellor erred in not dismissing the bill for want of equity, and the decree is reversed, and one is here rendered dismissing the bill.

Reversed and rendered.

Tyson, C. J., and Dowdell and McClellan, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People's Bank v. McAleer
85 So. 413 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1920)
First State Bank v. Spencer
219 F. 503 (Eighth Circuit, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 So. 357, 149 Ala. 93, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brock-spight-v-oliver-ala-1907.