Case ID: ala_37/html/0453-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "STONE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BRADFORD vs. BRADLEY’S ADM’RS.
    [BIEL IN EQUITY FOR REFORMATION OF ABSOLUTE BEER AS MORTGAGE? REDEMPTION, ACCOUNT, &C-]
    1. What is final deer-ce. — A decree in chancery, which settles all the equities between the parties, leaving only the matters of aeeount to he adjusted on a reference before the master, is such a final decree as will support au appeal.
    2. Limitation of ajpgeaZ. — 'Where an appeal is sued out in. a chancery cause more than two years after the rendition of the decree which set” tied all the equities between the parties, an d all the assignments of error relate to matters embraced in that decree, the appeal will he dismissed, on motion, because barred by the statute of limitations.
    Appeal from the Chancery Court at Claiborne;
    Heard before the Hon. M. J. Saffold.
    The bill in this case was filed, on the Sth January, 1856, by Nancy Bradford, against Ely Bradley y, and sought, principally, the recovery of certain slaves, with an account of their hires while in the defendant’s possession. The complainant had a life-interest in the slaves in controversy, under the will of her deceased father, who died in Conecuh, county in 1842 ; and she alleged in her bill, that the defendant had had the possession and control of them, as her agent and trustee, since 1843, hiring them out, collecting the hires, &o. The complainant had • executed to the defendant, in 1843, conveyances for two of the slaves, which were absolute on their face, but which she insisted were intended only as mortgages, to secure and reimburse him for moneys which he bad paid for her; and as to these two slaves she prayed a redemption and account. In 1852, an inquisition of lunacy was sued out against the complainant, before the probate court of Conecuh county ; and she was thereupon declared non compos mentis, and the defendant was appointed her guardian. The bill alleged, that these proceedings were void, because they were had without notice to her; and further, that the defendant had never rendered any account to said probate court of bis guardianship. The bill prayed, that these proceedings might be declared void, and that the defendant might be compelled to account for all the property which he had received under his appointment as guardian and it also contained the general prayer, for other and further relief.
    The defendant answered the bill, but not under oath., as a sworn .answer was waived. He denied -that ho had over acted as complainant’s agent, ¡though he had -sometimes assisted her as a friend, and had never hired out her slaves for her, nor received' their hires. As to the two slaves for which the complainant had executed conveyances to him, he insisted that the deeds- were intended to be absolute, as they purported to be, and that he paid full valuó for the complainant’s interest in .the slaves. He alleged that the proceedings had under-the inquisition of-lunacy, and his own appointment as guardian of the complainant, were regular and valid; admitted that he had never made a settlement of his guardianship with said probate court, but averred his readiness to do so*.when required; demurred to the bilb for want of equity, because tne.complainant had. a complete and adequate remedy at law, and because her claim was barred by lapse of time, and by the statute of limitations^ and set up the statute of limitations by way of plea.
    At the December term, 185G, the cause was submitted for decree, on hill, answer, and testimony. The chancellor (Hon. Wade Keyes.) overruled the demurrers, and held that .the complainant was entitled to relief as to all the slaves except one. He therefore rendered a decree, requiring the defendant to deliver the slaves to her within thirty days, and directing the register to state an account, charging the defendant with the reasonable hire of the slaves from the time they went into his .possession, and allowing him credits for all moneys which he had paid to or for the complainant. The master reported to. the June term, 1857; but bis report was set aside, “ on affidavit of the defendant.” He again reported to the December term, 1857,- showing a balance against the defendant of over $2,300 ; to which report both partiesrfiled exceptions. At the same term, on motion- of the defendant, the funner decree (December, 1856) -was so modified, ao to direct the master, in stating the account, not to charge-the defendant with any item which accrued more than six years before the filing of the bill. At the July term, -.1858, the defendant’s death was suggested, and the suit was revived against his administrators; and the master’s modified report, which showed a balance of 11423 .27 against the defendant, was ordered to lie over until the next term. At- the December term, 1858, the defendants’ exceptions to the report were overruled, and the report confirmed; .and at the February term, 1860, a final decree was rendered -in the cause, requiring the defendants, as administrators,-to pay- to the complainant,-within ten days, “ the sum of $1613, being the amount heretofore- reported as due her an the 21st June, 185S, with interest thereon to the present time.”
    ¡.The appeal was sued out on the 29th February, 1860. Jibe errors assigned are — 1st, the decree of December, 1856, bo far as it refused to ¡grant relief as to one of the slaves in controversy; 2d, the-modification of that decree at the December term, 1857; 3d, the decree -of February, I860, in -not charging the defendant with the amount reported to be due from him before the master’s report was modified; and, 4th, the overruling of tbe complainant’s exceptions to the master’s report at tbe December term, 1857. The ap-pellees submitted a motion to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that it was barred by tbe statute of limitations.
    Watts, Judge: '& JacksoN, for the motion.
    O. Jewett, eowtra.
    
   STONE, J.

In tbe ease of Garner v. Prewitt, (32 Ala. 13-18,) we eonsidered our 'former decisions, and announced as tbe result of them, that if all the equities between the parties are settled [by the decree], and there remains only .&> reference to -be-had for the ascertainment of the amount. the decree is final.” That decision has become a rule of practice, and we do not feel inclined to> question or re-examine the grounds on which it rests. In fact, we could not depart from it, without overturning the whole body of our decisions on that question..

In the decree of the December term,. 1856, and of the December term, 1857, all the equities between these parties were fully settled, leaving open only the matter of. the account. The decree' of the December term, 1857, went to the extent of fixing the date, beyond which the account should not be carried. Nothing remained unsettled, except the value of the hires of the negroes, and the amount of payments and credits to -which Mr. Bradley was entitled'.. These matters related to the account exclusively.

The report of the register, made pursuant to the decree’ of December, 1857, was confirmed without exception.. The first three assignments of error question the correct rulings of the chancellor, in the two decrees of December,, 1856, and December, 1857. These were barred by the statute of limitations of two years, which, had elapsed before the present appeal was taken. The fourth assignment of error relates to the register’s report made under the first decree, and which was superseded by the corrected decree of December term, 1857. That report was never acted-upon,, nor confirmed; and the items in it which were excepted to, were not carried forward into the corrected report, which was aifcerwards confirmed.

The appellee’s, motion to dismiss the appeal, because it ip barred by the statute of limitations, must be sustained..

Appeal dismissed, at costs of appellant.