The Birmingham age-herald., 1907-06-23
Full Text of Opinion in the Bod
 die Case
UNDUE INFLUENCE DEFINED
Title to the Woodward Building At. attacked in Bill Filed by John B. tackled in Bill Filed By John B.
 out Equity.

l in the case of John B. Boddte Ys. Will ] liam C. Ward, the supreme court com
 pletely clears the administrator of the charges preferred against nim in his bill of complaint The case created consider
 able interest when proceedings were first
 instituted and it's conclusion sets the
 matter at rest forever. The following is
 the opinion in full as delivered by Justice i Mcclellan.
 John B. Boddie vs. William C. Ward, appeal from Jefferson chancery court.
 The conv-~ince by complainant and
 another to the administrator, as such,
 of the estate of the intestate Bodde, ot
 whom the complainant was heir at law,
 was nothing more nor less than a deed of trust, for the benefit of the creditors
 of the estate of the intestate, the subject
 of which was real estate aescended to | the complainant burdened with liability
 in an event to be taken, to pay debts against intestate estate
 |. The administrator was constituted by
 the conveyance, the repository of the
 legal title, which was impressed with l the express trust to sell the property 1 conveyed and to apply the proceeds there
 of to the. satisfaction of the demands of the creditors. The purpose and effect of the instrument is unmstakable. True,
 the creditors, not being parties to the con l Veyance for their benefit, might have re- l pudiated the arrangement, but no aver 1 ment of such declination appears in the bill, they made parties to the 1 bill. So, we must take it that the bene- | ficiaries of the trust created expressly or | impliedly accepted the provision made for their beneht.-Perry on Trusts, sectic-. l 5S5
 By this conveyance to the administrator, | as such, Ward acquired no personal in l terest or right in the subject Of the 1 trust imposed to sell and apply the pro- l to he DrOVded. unless if 1 be assumed without averment thereof, l that the trustee was unfaithful to his 1 duty, as such, in the performance of the duty and trust created by the in- strument, which, for patent reasons, can l not and will not be assumed.
 Concedng then, but without deciding l it. that relation of trust and conf l dence existed between the complainant and the administrato in the matter and i at the time of their transaction creating a trust for the benefit of the creditors, l the general rule, oft repeated in the de- 1 cisions of this court, anent contracts be- 1 tween parties occupying relations of con- l fidence, cannot apply in this Instance, l for the reason that the repository of the i complainants confidence and trust, by 1 which it Is alleged the trustee, under the deed. imposed upon the confiding com piainant and violated his duty by the ex-
 ercise of undue influence, took, person
 ally, no beneficial interest in or right
 to the subject of the conveyance-Holt
 vs. Agrew, 67 Ala. 36S; Humphreys vs.
 Burleston, 72 Ala. g. Malone ys. Kelly, 54 Ala. 5S2; Ferguson vs. Lowery, 54 Ala, 510; Kidd vs. Williams, 132 Ala, 140; Me 1 Queen vs. Wilson, 131 Ala 606. The last cited authority while written in decision of questions arising from the execution of will declares the principle above as- l serted, viz: That the undue influence charged must be that a selfish purpose or end may be or Is accomplished Ii brevity were not here important. we would prefer to quote from these adjudicatlors. So, that, whatever may have been tie relation existing between the admnis- trator. as such, and the complainant at the time of the execution of the deed, no effect can be accorded that fact, unless l ihe intervention on the respondents Wood 1 ward and other purchasers of the roper ty. for value paid, from the trustee under l the deed, alters the status so that the l general doctrine founded upon the rela- 1 tions of confidence is applicable.
 We think, and hold, that tne princi-
 pie decisive of the case of Walker vs.
 Nicrosi, 1S5 Ala. 353, is likewise decisive. in this respect, of the case at bar.
 | q. In Walker vs. Nicrosi, supra, plea
 was filed by Mrs. Walker in which it
 was averred in substance, that she was
 not the principal debtor, but ner hus-
 band was; that the mortgage rested on
 her separate estate; that besides the rela I
 that they were husband and wife, such
 relation was further emphasized by the existance of a marriage contract between
 them; that the mortgage knew of this | relation at the time the note and mort gage were executed; and that, notwith- | standing this knowledge of the relation
 then existing the mortgagee accep ed | Mrs. Walker as surety for her husband
 debt, her signature to which instruments
 was obtained by the undue Influence ot | Walker. There was no questioning of
 her legal capacity to become the surety
 for her husband. Passing upon the suf- ficiency of this plea. this court held such
 plea insufficient upon the ground that I it Is not alleged that the complainant
 either participated In or induced or was prvy to or had notice of the alleged un-
 due influence upon his wife. Bessie w.,
 in respect to the execution of tl< mort
 gage to complainant. upon the supposed
 security of which he parted with his
 money"
 The principle, which the cited case il-
 illustrates, is that one who purchases for | value property of another unduly in 1 fiuenced to part herewith by a third | party who occupies a position of conf dence toward the assignor, releasor or ! grantor will be protected under his con
 tract or in acquired rights. unless the l assignee, releasee or grantee Is privy to,
 participated in, induced or had notice of l the undue influence applied, and that the mere knowledge or notice of the con- | fidential relation existing at the time of l the transaction between the parties so l relationed will not avail to cast on the !, transaction suspicion and demand for l explanation or invoke an equity courts | investigation and scrutiny to see that the confiding party has been appraised of all | information, and that fair treatment was | accorded in the transaction, by the one in whom confidence WIS reposed-
 l The cases of Moses vs McDade; Dent vs. Long; Rogers vs. Adams; Moog vs. 1 Strang; Grider vs. Mortgage Co.,, cited in support of the conclusion announced by
 the court in Walker vs. 4Sicrosi, supra; | clearly and unequivocatly do so, and also | sustain the pronouncement made in the
 present appeal.
 | The principle, applied in this case, dem 1 onstrates the want of equity in this bill. l there being no charge. in the pIll of the | requisite act or notice quoted, which must I afford this complainant any right to de- | prive the purchaser for value of the fruit | of the transaction with the trustee under | the deed
 Furthermore, and independent of the | consideration stated, If 1t were conceded
 that any selfish benefit accrued to the ladministrator by virtue of the convey 1 ance the bill is equitably insufficient in l another respect. The execution of the | deed Is averred to nave resulted from l ha tat ade hv the adminiS-