Heard v. Hicks

82 Ala. 484
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedDecember 15, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 82 Ala. 484 (Heard v. Hicks) 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
Heard v. Hicks, 82 Ala. 484 (Ala. 1886).

Opinion

CLOPTON, J.

— No principle of law is more decisively settled, than that a conveyance of her statutory separate estate by a marrfid woman, whose disabilities of coverture have not been removed, whether by mortgage or absolute deed, as security for, or in consideration of the debt of her husband, is void under our statutes. The conditions existing, the invalidity can not be avoided by any circuitous line or series of conveyances. A mortgage by a married woman and her husband of" her statutory separate estate, as security for the debt of her husband, followed by an absolute conveyance in payment of the debt, and a subsequent sale and conveyance to the husband, with a mortgage by husband and wife to secure the purchase-money, are each and all invalid, no rights of third persons intervening. Fraud in the execution of the conveyances is not requisite to the interposition of a court of equity, at the instance of the wife, to rescind and cancel them, and remove the cloud thereby cast on her title. The averments of the bill show that the complainant is a married woman ; that the land is her statutory separate estate ; that the several conveyances were made solely as security for, and in consideration of the debt of her husband; and that she is in possession. The complainant is not required to prove fraud, though [486]*486charged. In such case, a charge of fraud is immaterial, and surplusage. The equity of the bill rests on other and independent ground. — Williams v. Bass, 57 Ala. 487; Boyleston v. Farrior, 64 Ala. 564; Simms v. Kelly, 70 Ala. 429.

The demurrer was properly overruled.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Hatter v. Quina
113 So. 47 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1927)
Morriss v. O'Connor
90 So. 304 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1921)
Richardson v. Stephens
114 Ala. 238 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1896)
Union National Bank of Chicago v. Chapman
7 A.D. 450 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
Clement v. Draper Mathis & Co.
108 Ala. 211 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1895)
Hawkins v. Ross
100 Ala. 459 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1893)
Lansden v. Bone
90 Ala. 446 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 Ala. 484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heard-v-hicks-ala-1886.