Gibson v. Gibson

76 So. 949, 200 Ala. 591, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 559
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedNovember 15, 1917
Docket4 Div. 672.
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 76 So. 949 (Gibson v. Gibson) 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
Gibson v. Gibson, 76 So. 949, 200 Ala. 591, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 559 (Ala. 1917).

Opinion

THOMAS, J.

The bill is to declare a re•sulting trust in the lands in question, paramount to the mortgage of the respondent bank.

[1] The deed from Henderson and Hill was executed to appellant Gibson, and, by agreement, was to be delivered to Mr. Ivey as an escrow. It not having been delivered to the grantee, Gibson, nor to any one for him, and such grantee having failed to perforip his part of the agreement, the condition on which delivery was dependent, there was no vesting of the title in R. M. Gibson. Tar-water v. Going, 140 Ala. 273, 37 South. 330; Fuller v. Hollis, 57 Ala. 435.

[2] Delivery is essential to the complete execution of a deed, and the mere deposit of the conveyance, complete in all respects as a deed, without the intention of passing the title, is not a sufficient delivery to vest title in the grantee named therein. Gulf Coal & Coke Co., 145 Ala. 228, 40 South. 397; Culver v. Carroll, 175 Ala. 469, 476, 57 South. 767, Ann. Cas. 4914D, 103.

[3] To be. a bona fide purchaser, and as such entitled to protection against equities, one must have purchased the legal title to the lands. Warren v. Liddell, 110 Ala. 232, 20 South. 89; Ketchum v. Creagh, 53 Ala. 224; Smith v. Perry, 56 Ala. 266, 269; Shorter v. Frazer, 64 Ala. 74, 81; Vattier v. Hinde, 7 Pet. 252, 271, 8 L. Ed. 675; 3 Rose’s Notes U. S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 375. Not having acquired the legal title from R. M. Gibson, but merely his equity in the land, the Farmers’ Bank, in and by its mortgage, had only a subordinate equity to the older equity of Sam and Ben Gibson.

[4] Moreover, the agreement as to the delivery to Mr. Ivey of Sam and Ben Gibson’s check for the purchase price of the land, with the condition that the deed of Henderson and Hill be held by Ivey until a mortgage to secure the purchase price was executed on said lands by R. M. Gibson and wife and delivered to Sam and Ben Gibson, had the effect, on the failure to so execute and deliver the mortgage, to subrogate Sam and Ben Gibson to the vendor’s lien discharged by the payment of Gibson’s check. Woodruff v. Satterfield, 199 Ala. 477, 74 South. 948.

Let the decree of the chancellor be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, Ct J., and MAYFIELD and SOMERVILLE, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Lightsey v. Stone
52 So. 2d 376 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1951)
Larkins v. Howard
39 So. 2d 224 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1949)
Lauderdale v. Peace Baptist Church
19 So. 2d 538 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1944)
Mosley v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.
114 P.2d 740 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1941)
Phillips v. Sipsey Coal Mining Co.
118 So. 513 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1928)
Brooks v. Capps
115 So. 864 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1928)
Hope of Alabama Lodge of Odd Fellows v. Chambless
103 So. 54 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)
Harris v. Geneva Mill Co.
96 So. 622 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
76 So. 949, 200 Ala. 591, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-v-gibson-ala-1917.