Morris v. Southern Realty & Construction Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Morris v. Southern Realty & Construction Co.

84 So. 809, 203 Ala. 600, 1920 Ala. LEXIS 440

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 15, 1920

Docket6 Div. 943.

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 84 So. 809 (Morris v. Southern Realty & Construction Co.) 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

Morris v. Southern Realty & Construction Co., 84 So. 809, 203 Ala. 600, 1920 Ala. LEXIS 440 (Ala. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMAS, J.

The bill avers facts showing that the American Trust & Savings Bank is in possession of a $11,000 trust fund in which the Bank of Ensley has an interest of about $6,000, as the holder of a, mortgage on property sold, and from which the $11,-000 was obtained, and that the amount in excess of the latter bank’s equity is claimed by complainant and the respondent Southern Realty & Construction Company. All parties at interest are properly before the court (Perkins, Livingston & Post v. B. I. & C. Co., 77 Ala. 403, 408; Harris v. Johnson, 176 Ala. 445, 58 South. 426; Winn v. Fitzwater, 151 Ala. 171, 44 South. 97; 1 Pom. Eq. [3d Ed.] § 114; 15 Ency. Pl. & Pr. p. 584; Sims’ Ch. Pr. §§ 139, 140) that complete relief may be given by the final decree (Hicks v. Meadows, 193 Ala. 246, 255, 69 South. 432; 1 Story Eq., § 105).

[1, 2] Equity will enforce a trust and distribute it to the respective equitable owners. Evans v. Evans, 200 Ala. 329, 76 South. 95, 101; 22 Encyc. Pl. & Pr. p. 135. All claimants of the fund may he made parties, though some of them may not he willing to become parties or may question complainant’s interest in the proceeds of the check indorsed by them or in the chose in action alleged to be assigned, or in the property sold and converted into the trust moneys in question. Howard v. Corey, 126 Ala. 283, 289, 28 South. 682; Broughton v. Mitchell, 64 Ala. 210, 220; Davis v. Smith, 88 Ala. 596, 598, 7 South. 159; Knight v. Knight, 103 Ala. 484, 487, 15 South. 834.

Though the Bank of Ensley may rightfully decline to credit on its hank hooks the fund in question, and thereafter litigate with respective claimants their right thereto, yet it is here properly made a party respondent, so that the interest of all parties in the trust fund may he determined and a proper distribution thereof made by the court, and that the American Trust & Savings Bank may rightfully disburse such trust fund to the severail parties so ascertained and decreed as having equities therein.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and rqmanded.

ANDERSON, C. J., and MeOLELLAN and SOMERVILLE, JJ., concur.

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

THOMAS, J.

The bill avers facts showing that the American Trust & Savings Bank is in possession of a $11,000 trust fund in which the Bank of Ensley has an interest of about $6,000, as the holder of a, mortgage on property sold, and from which the $11,-000 was obtained, and that the amount in excess of the latter bank’s equity is claimed by complainant and the respondent Southern Realty & Construction Company. All parties at interest are properly before the court (Perkins, Livingston & Post v. B. I. & C. Co., 77 Ala. 403, 408; Harris v. Johnson, 176 Ala. 445, 58 South. 426; Winn v. Fitzwater, 151 Ala. 171, 44 South. 97; 1 Pom. Eq. [3d Ed.] § 114; 15 Ency. Pl. & Pr. p. 584; Sims’ Ch. Pr. §§ 139, 140) that complete relief may be given by the final decree (Hicks v. Meadows, 193 Ala. 246, 255, 69 South. 432; 1 Story Eq., § 105).

[1, 2] Equity will enforce a trust and distribute it to the respective equitable owners. Evans v. Evans, 200 Ala. 329, 76 South. 95, 101; 22 Encyc. Pl. & Pr. p. 135. All claimants of the fund may he made parties, though some of them may not he willing to become parties or may question complainant’s interest in the proceeds of the check indorsed by them or in the chose in action alleged to be assigned, or in the property sold and converted into the trust moneys in question. Howard v. Corey, 126 Ala. 283, 289, 28 South. 682; Broughton v. Mitchell, 64 Ala. 210, 220; Davis v. Smith, 88 Ala. 596, 598, 7 South. 159; Knight v. Knight, 103 Ala. 484, 487, 15 South. 834.

Though the Bank of Ensley may rightfully decline to credit on its hank hooks the fund in question, and thereafter litigate with respective claimants their right thereto, yet it is here properly made a party respondent, so that the interest of all parties in the trust fund may he determined and a proper distribution thereof made by the court, and that the American Trust & Savings Bank may rightfully disburse such trust fund to the severail parties so ascertained and decreed as having equities therein.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and rqmanded.

ANDERSON, C. J., and MeOLELLAN and SOMERVILLE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 So. 809, 203 Ala. 600, 1920 Ala. LEXIS 440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-southern-realty-construction-co-ala-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack