Harton v. Amason

Supreme Court of Alabama

Harton v. Amason

76 So. 953, 200 Ala. 595, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 562

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedNovember 15, 1917

Docket6 Div. 369.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 76 So. 953 (Harton v. Amason) 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

Harton v. Amason, 76 So. 953, 200 Ala. 595, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 562 (Ala. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

SOMERVILLE, J.

Uiider the rulings made on the former appeal of this case, the lands described, in the bill are not subject to an attorney’s lien in favor of complainant, nor did their conveyance to the respondent corporation, by complainant’s consent, create a constructive trust in that behalf. Harton v. Amason, 195 Ala. 594, 71 South. 180.

[1,2] The several amendments ingrafted upon the bill after that decision work an abandonment of the theory upon which the special relief was originally prayed. As amended, the bill is now an ordinary creditor’s bill for the discovery of assets, whether equitable or legal as to title, and their subjection to complainant’s claim. Its equity rests upon the necessity of discovery, and the equitable nature of Harton’s alleged interest in the lands as nominally held by the corporation, or in the corporate stock as nominally held by Jones and Hawkins. A fraudulent conveyance by I-Iarton of -assets sought to be subjected by complainant is not necessary to the equity of the bill. Pollak v. Billing, 131 Ala. 519, 32 South. 639.

[3] The amendments work no departure from the original bill. Its primary purpose was to collect a debt out of lands which belonged legally or equitably to I-Iarton. That purpose still remains, though the theory of a preferential lien is abandoned. King v. Livingston Mfg. Co., 192 Ala. 269, 68 South. 897. As remarked in that case, the alteration of the theory upon, which a result is to be reached, although new facts are interjected, is not a departure which is obnoxious to the rules of equity procedure.

It is, of course, to be noted that if the testimony does not show, either the necessity for a discovery, or that Harton’s title in the property sought to be subjected is equitable, and not subject to legal process, then the equity of the bill fails, and complainant must be remitted to his remedies at law.

We find no error in the rulings of the trial court on the demurrers, and the decree overruling them will be atfirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J„ and MAYFIELD and THOMAS, JJ„ concur.

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

SOMERVILLE, J.

Uiider the rulings made on the former appeal of this case, the lands described, in the bill are not subject to an attorney’s lien in favor of complainant, nor did their conveyance to the respondent corporation, by complainant’s consent, create a constructive trust in that behalf. Harton v. Amason, 195 Ala. 594, 71 South. 180.

[1,2] The several amendments ingrafted upon the bill after that decision work an abandonment of the theory upon which the special relief was originally prayed. As amended, the bill is now an ordinary creditor’s bill for the discovery of assets, whether equitable or legal as to title, and their subjection to complainant’s claim. Its equity rests upon the necessity of discovery, and the equitable nature of Harton’s alleged interest in the lands as nominally held by the corporation, or in the corporate stock as nominally held by Jones and Hawkins. A fraudulent conveyance by I-Iarton of -assets sought to be subjected by complainant is not necessary to the equity of the bill. Pollak v. Billing, 131 Ala. 519, 32 South. 639.

[3] The amendments work no departure from the original bill. Its primary purpose was to collect a debt out of lands which belonged legally or equitably to I-Iarton. That purpose still remains, though the theory of a preferential lien is abandoned. King v. Livingston Mfg. Co., 192 Ala. 269, 68 South. 897. As remarked in that case, the alteration of the theory upon, which a result is to be reached, although new facts are interjected, is not a departure which is obnoxious to the rules of equity procedure.

It is, of course, to be noted that if the testimony does not show, either the necessity for a discovery, or that Harton’s title in the property sought to be subjected is equitable, and not subject to legal process, then the equity of the bill fails, and complainant must be remitted to his remedies at law.

We find no error in the rulings of the trial court on the demurrers, and the decree overruling them will be atfirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J„ and MAYFIELD and THOMAS, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 So. 953, 200 Ala. 595, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harton-v-amason-ala-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack