The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-10-23
MURPHY V. GREEN.

Bill in Equity to EnJoin Action of Eject ment and remove a Cloud-AppeaI from the Chancery Court of Conecuh. 1. Bill to enjoin ejectment; fraud; bur den of proof.-The complainant in bill to enjoin an action of ejectment, brought by the purchaser under execution agalpst complainant grantor, has me Durden or proving the bona fides of the considera- ton for the deed obtained by him from
 such grantor when the bill alleges that the consideration expressed In sald deed
 Is the true amount he (complalnanp palo
 for said land" and the answer denies the
 bona fides of the transactton, ana ayers
 that the conveyance to complainant was
 executed fraudulently
 2. Same; same; same. necessity Tor
 cross bill.-When a bill seeks to en1oin
 an action of ejectment brought bY the purchaser under execution against com plainant's grantor, and alleges that the or which expresses the true consideration
 paid by complainant for the lana de- scribed in the deed and the answer denies the bona fides of the transaction and Is unnecessary to present the question or fraud vel non, the same being sufficiently
 raised by the bill and the answer:
 B. Same: same; case at bar.-Upon a bill filed to enjoin an action Of e1ectment and remove & cloud wherein 1t is alleged that the consideration expressed In the deed to complainant was the true amount paid by him for the land, and the an
 
 ment creditor of complainants grantor.
 claiming title by virtue of sheIln oeeu
 under execution upon his said Judgment,
 denies the bona fides of the consideration and averred that it was simulated 1t ap-
 neared that complainant was brother or his grantor, resided with her as mem Der of her family and was employed by her in a milling business conducteQ upon tha land in controversy, that the constd- eration expressed in said deed was $l,- 7ST, 50 cash in hand paid, that complainant was a man of no means, that ne claiineu clan to have paid the consideration by cutting and disposing of the timber on said land. but that the whole amount of timber so cut and disposed of after deductlnS ex- penses fell far short or the conslderauon expressed in the deed, that the deed pur- ported to have been executed July 10th, 1892, was not acknowledged until March 20th 1s93 nor recorded until December 18th, 1893. which was not a great while before respondent obtained his judgment, that said grantor continued to reside up- on the land after the date of said alleged deed held herself out as the owner there of and rented out the same untli lSS4' claiming the right to collect the rents un- til the purchase money was paid all though her account showed the payment to have been made in 1892, that the debt of respondent existed at the date or saia alleged deed. as well as various other debts which were pressing, placing sald grantor in an embarrassed financial con dition. that complainant knew or the eH- IStence or LnlS lnueDltuHtSot bliehN AS "SS~N and occupied the land In the same man ner after said deed as before, that there were material discrepancies in the test- mony of complatnants witnesses ana at least one statement was positively con tradicted by a disinterested witness, that the land was rented by said grantor in 1894 to one Thomas with whom complain, ant then boarded. but nothing was said bv either about the rent and that In 1893, when an execution was presented 10 said grantor she said she had l,5Oo ,aS acres ts Held: That the proof failed to show the bona fides of the transaction, and that was not entitled 10 rtliel'
 4 Fraudulent conveyance; deed or | married woman without joinder of hus- band; subs squeut valid 'Xecution. on.-Where a married woman executes deed without the concurrence of her husband Tn the manner prescribed by law Code, sees. 252S), with intent to hinder. delay ana ae- fraud creditors. the subsequent execution | of deed by her and her husband iSd 1nrnoss in ae of curing the defects. if any. in the oriS- lnal deed, vests no title whatever in the