Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

24 Ala. 355

Smith v. Pearson

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 15, 1854

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1854-01-15

<p>1. All absolute bill of sale of a slave decreed to stand only as a mortgage, upon proof that the vendor was upwards of seventy years old, — infirm,— embarrassed, — his property levied on, and about to bo sold, — and that the vendee, who ivas his son-in-law, took advantage of all these circumstances to make the transaction assume the form of an absolute sale instead of a mortgage.</p> <p>2. Equity will afford specific relief, such as a court of law cannot give, against an instrument which was executed on Sunday, but purporting on its face to have been executed on Saturday, notwithstanding the instrument may also be void at law.</p>

Relies on William Peirsoll v. James Elliott · Hamilton v. Cummings

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1854-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 1945

8 state decisions

201854186018701880189019001910192019301940decided

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 →

GOLDTHWAITE, J.

¶1It is unnecessary to consider the action of the Chancellor on the motion to suppress the deposition of Basil Adams, for the reason, that if his evidence is rejected, we all agree, upon a careful examination of the whole testimony, that tlio fraud of Isaac T. Smith is sufficiently established.

¶2Neither do wo consider the parties in this case as standing in pari delido. The complainant is shown to have been upwards of seventy years of age, — infirm,—embarrassed,—his property levied upon, and about to be sold; and the defendant, Isaac T. Smith, ivas taking advantage of these circumstances, and of the position he occupied towards him as his son-in-law, to make the transaction have the appearance of an absolute sale instead of a mortgage. Tho party seeking relief was not only acting under circumstances of imposition and undue influence, but also of pecuniary pressure. — 2 Story’s Ecp (3 edit.) § 695 a, and cases there cited.

¶3It is urged, however, on the part of the plaintiff in error, that as the transaction was executed on Sunday, the party, for that reason, has his remedy at law. It is true, that, if the nullity of the instrument appeared upon its face, a court of chancery might refuse to interfere, where no discovery ivas sought, or *358defect of proof averred (Gray v. Matthias, 5 Vos. 28G; Franco v. Bolton, 3 Ves. 368 ); but this is not the case here. The bill of sale is dated on Satux’day; the specific relief required is such as a court of law cannot give, and the instrument, from its very nature, and its apparent validity, is calculated to throw doubt upon the title. It is well settled, that equity, under these circumstances, will maintain its jurisdiction, and afford relief, notwithstanding the instrument may bo void in law. —St. John v. St. John, 11 Ves. 535; Simpson v. Lord Howden, 3 M. & C.; Bromley v. Holland, 7 Ves. 16; Hamilton v. Cummings, 1 Johns. Ch. 520; Elliot v. Piersol, 6 Pet. 95.

¶4It follows that there was no error in the decision, which is affirmed ; the plaintiffs in error paying the costs of this court.

/24/ala/355 · .json · Public domain