Hanvey v. F. M. Formby Co.

75 So. 1003, 200 Ala. 696
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided April 5, 1917·No. 7 Div. 856.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

THOMAS, J.

It is unnecessary to restate the law applicable to a creditors’ bill to set aside a fraudulent conveyance of real property. The cases having application have been recently collected and discussed in McCrory et al. v. Donald, 192 Ala. 312, 68 South. 306. The testimony has been carefully considered, and without presumption in favor of the ruling' of the chancellor; and we are of the opinion that the correct conclusion was reached. The burden of proof was not discharged by the vendee. Thompson v. Tower Mfg. Co., 104 Ala. 140, 16 South. 116; Wooten v. Steele, 109 Ala. 563, 19 South. 972, 55 Am. St. Rep. 947; British & Amer. Mortg. Co. v. Norton, 125 Ala. 522, 28 South. 31. The decree of the city court of Anniston, sitting in equity, is affirmed. Affirmed.

ANDERSON. O. J., and MAYFIELD'and SOMERVILLE, JJ., concur.

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

Hanvey v. F. M. Formby Co., 75 So. 1003, 200 Ala. 696 (Ala. 1917).

75 So. 1003 (Hanvey v. F. M. Formby Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cooke v. Wilbanks
135 So. 435 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1931)