Legal Opinion

Davis v. Swanson

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1875PublishedCited by 18 opinions

Appeal from Chancery Court of Barbour. Heard before Hon. B. B. MoCraw. The point decided is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtBrickell, C. J.

The bill filed by the appellee is devoid of equity, and should have been dismissed by the chancellor, mero motu. A voluntary conveyance, or a conveyance made with the intent to hinder, delay and defraud creditors, can be avoided only by creditors and purchasers. As between the parties, their personal representatives and heirs, such conveyances are valid. An executor or administrator is the representative of the testator or intestate, succeeding to his rights, and of consequence capable of maintaining only such suits as he could maintain. He is not the representative of creditors, authorized…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Walton v. BonhamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1854
  2. Marler v. MarlerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1844
  3. Roden v. MurphySupreme Court of Alabama · 1846

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Spooner's Adm'r v. Hilbish's Ex'orSupreme Court of Virginia · 1895
  2. Coffey v. Norwood & NorwoodSupreme Court of Alabama · 1886
  3. Kimball v. Cunningham Hdw. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1916
  4. Gilliland v. FennSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
  5. Davis v. Stovall & BrotherSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API