Cross v. Berry, Demoville & Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from Morgan 'Chancery Court. Heard before Hon. W. H. Simpson. The opinion states the facts. (1.) A conveyance of exempt property is valid, without regal'd to the- consideration or the reservation o>f a benefit therein. — Clems v. Malone, 119 Ala. 312; Kennedy v. First Nat.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Morgan 'Chancery Court. Heard before Hon. W. H. Simpson. The opinion states the facts. (1.) A conveyance of exempt property is valid, without regal'd to the- consideration or the reservation o>f a benefit therein. — Clems v. Malone, 119 Ala. 312; Kennedy v. First Nat. Bank, 107 Ala. 170; Poliak v. McNeil, 100 Ala. 203; Fuller v. Whitlock, 99 Ala. 411; Hodges v. Winston, 95 Ala. 514; CMpman v. Glennon, 98 Ala. 263. (2) The mortgage, being prior in point of time to the creation of Cross’ debt to appellees, can be invalidated only for actual fraud. — Craft v. Wilcox, 102 Ala. 378;…
1Opinion of the CourtDowdell, J.
— The present bill was filed by Berry, Demoville & Co., who were creditors of the appellant Cross, and seeks to have set aside and annulled a mortgage executed by Cross to the appellant Young as being fraudulent and void as to creditors. Troup, Brock and Ryan were also made defendants in the bill for pur-, poses therein averred, which we need not mention here since they were not made parties to this appeal, the appeal having been taken alone by Cross and Young. The appeal, however, should have been taken in the name of all the defendants and a summons and severance had in this court as to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Benedict, Hall & Co. v. Renfro Bros.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1883
- O'Neil v. Birmingham Brewing Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1893
- Roden & Co. v. Norton & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1900
- Mims v. CobbsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1895
3Cited by1 opinion
- Gillespie v. McCleskySupreme Court of Alabama · 1909