Walton v. Bonham

24 Ala. 513
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJanuary 15, 1854
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 24 Ala. 513 (Walton v. Bonham) 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
Walton v. Bonham, 24 Ala. 513 (Ala. 1854).

Opinion

GOLDTHWAITE, J.

The equity of the bill rests upon the allegations of the sale of land by Humphries, the intestate of the defendant, to the complainant, with warranty of title ; the fraudulent representations on the part of the vendor that he had the title at the time of the conveyance, when, in fact, he had not, by reason of his conveyance to his children before that time; and the insolvency of his estate, which renders it unable to respond in damages. These allegations are sufficient to sustain the bill. —Young v. Harris, 2 Ala. 108; Spence v. Driver, 3 Ala. 251; Greenlee v. Gaines, 13 Ala. 198.

[515]*515The appellant proves that the deed to the children was made to defraud creditors, and sets up the fraud of his intestate in order to defeat that deed, and thus sustain tho title to the complainant. This cannot be done. The law holds the deed void, as against creditors and purchasers ; but it can only be so declared when it is attacked for the fraud. Here the deed is not assailed by the purchaser. He assumes, as he has a right to do, that it is honest, and a court of justice will not allow the party who made it to say that it was fraudulent. To do so, would be against good morals; and the grantor, under such circumstances, not being permitted to impeach his own deed, his administrator cannot do so.—Marler v. Marler, 6 Ala. 367; Roden v. Murphy, 10 Ala. 804.

Decree affirmed.

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

Related

English v. Huckaba
122 So. 841 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1929)
Burch v. Driver
88 So. 902 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1921)
Yarbrough v. Thornton
42 So. 402 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1906)
Parker v. Parker
93 Ala. 80 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1890)
Holliday v. McKinne
22 Fla. 153 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1886)
Voltz v. Voltz
75 Ala. 555 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1883)
Wilkinson v. Searcy
74 Ala. 243 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1883)
United States v. Poole
5 F. 412 (D. Maine, 1880)
Bolling v. Jones
67 Ala. 508 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1880)
Lindsey v. Veasy
62 Ala. 421 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1878)
Gary, Hudson & Co. v. G. Jacobson
55 Miss. 204 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1877)
Davis v. Swanson
54 Ala. 277 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1875)
Greenwood v. Coleman
34 Ala. 150 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1859)
Prout v. Roberts' Adm'r
32 Ala. 427 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1858)
Greene v. Allen
32 Ala. 215 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1858)
Bryan v. Weems
29 Ala. 423 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1856)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 Ala. 513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walton-v-bonham-ala-1854.