Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

82 Ala. 484

Heard v. Hicks

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1886

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1886-12-15

Heard before tbe Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on the 17th July, 1886, by Mrs. Charlotte B. Hicks, a married woman, suing by her next friend, against her husband, James A. Hicks, and George P. Heard; and sought to have cancelled and set aside, as clouds on her title to certain lands, of which she was in possession, a mortgage of said lands to said George P. Heard,^signed by her and her husband, and several subsequent conveyances thereof.

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 1927

7 state decisions

Relies on Williams, Birnie & Co. v. Bass · Boyleston v. Farrior · Simms v. Kelly

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-12-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

CLOPTON, J.

¶1— 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 *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.

¶2The demurrer was properly overruled.

¶3Affirmed.

/82/ala/484 · .json · Public domain