Winfrey v. Clarke
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the City Court of Decatur. Heard before the Hou. W. IT. Simpson. The facts averred in the bill were as follows : On March 10, 1891, the complainant, being seized and possessed of a certain tract of land, sold and conveyed the same to V. N. Winfrey & Co., a copartnership composed of one W. N. Winfrey and said John W. Landman; and on same day executed and delivered to W. N. Winfrey in person the deed to said land.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the City Court of Decatur. Heard before the Hou. W. IT. Simpson. The facts averred in the bill were as follows : On March 10, 1891, the complainant, being seized and possessed of a certain tract of land, sold and conveyed the same to V. N. Winfrey & Co., a copartnership composed of one W. N. Winfrey and said John W. Landman; and on same day executed and delivered to W. N. Winfrey in person the deed to said land. On the same day, March 10, 1891, W. N. Winfrey &• Co., and Earnest J. Winfrey executed and delivered to complainant a promissory note for the purchase money of said land.…
1Opinion of the CourtHaralson, J.
Under the general rule in equity, on the facts stated in the bill, the complainant was en*358titled to maintain it against defendants for the collection of his debt. — 3 Rom. Eq. 1758, § 1154; 2 Story’s Eq. §§ 1250-51; Cameron v. Cameron, 82 Ala. 392; Dunlap v. Newman, 47 Ala. 429.
The two Alabama cases just cited hold, that where persons, without administration, take possession of and convert to their own use, the estate of a decedent, they hold it as a trust fund in their.hands, which a creditor of the decedent may subject to the payment of his debt by a bill in chancery filed for that purpose.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Cameron v. CameronSupreme Court of Alabama · 1886
- Abernathy v. BankheadSupreme Court of Alabama · 1881
- Dunlap v. NewmanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1872
3Cited by1 opinion
- Johnston v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1951