Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

104 Ala. 353

Hill Bros. v. Moone

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1893

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1893-11-15

Heard before the Hon. Jere N. Williams. The bill in this case was filed by the appellants, as creditors of Perry Moone and others, and sought to have set aside as fraudulent certain conveyances, executed by the said Perry Moone. All the facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The respondents demurred to the bill, among others, upon the following grounds : “4th.

Relies on Lehman v. Meyer · Hinds v. Hinds · Handley v. Heflin

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1893-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 1946

11 state decisions

40189319001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

HEAD, J.

¶1This is a creditor’s bill to set aside certain conveyances.made by Perry Moone as fraudulent. There are a number of such sales attacked by the bill: 1. One to the Bank of Dothan October 3, 1892, conveying a large amount of personal property, and about the same time, by a separate transfer, certain notes or accounts on W. C. O’Neal & Co. 2. Sundry sales of goods during the summer and fall of 1892, to Blount, Nicholson & Co. 3. Sundry sales of goods during the summer and fall of 1892 to W. C. O’Neal & Co. There *355is no allegation that these several sales had any actual connection with each other, in any way, either in fact or intent. The respondents each assigned, among others, the following grounds of demurrer to the bill, which the chancellor sustained, and the appeal is from his decretal order in that behalf, viz.: “The bill seeks to hold the different respondents to account for goods received from Perry Moone at different times, and by different respondents, and in different amounts, and fails to allege any facts showing that they had any conversation, oue with the other, or that the various acts complained of are part and parcel of one fraudulent transaction or scheme.” The other ground sustained is substantially the same. We regard it a settled rule, in this State, that such a bill is not multifarious. — Halstead v. Shepard, 23 Ala. 558 ; Lehman v. Meyer, 67 Ala. 396 ; Russell v. Garrett, 75 Ala. 350; Burford v. Steele, 80 Ala. 147; Hinds v. Hinds, Ib. 225 ; Handley v. Heflin, 84 Ala. 600. These cases explain the reason of the rule, and a careful reading of them will show that it is not essential to the joinder that there should have been participation by all the grantees in the making of all the transfers. See the rule in New York and other States, stated in the note, 15 Am. Dec. at p. 428, cited approvingly by this court, in Hinds v. Hinds, 80 Ala. 225, supra. The chancellor erred in his conclusion that the bill was multifarious, and,his decretal order is reversed and the cause remanded.

¶2Reversed and remanded.

/104/ala/353 · .json · Public domain