Court Opinion

ID: 9828822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:45:51.781341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:53.507725
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Upon a former day of the present term, we affirmed the judgment herein as to all of the appellants, except the minors. As to appellant Juliana Janes, our opinion was based upon the fact that her petition, as we construed it, did not contain sufficient allegations as to fraud. The allegations as to fraud in obtaining the deed from her to K. T. Stratton, as well as to the transactions leading up to the same, are numerous and emphatic in some portions of her peti*389tion, but we thought that they were neutralized by other portions thereof. In this we have concluded that we were in error. In paragraph 30 of appellant’s petition she alleges that:
“She had no knowledge of any of the said fraudulent pretended deeds, mortgages, and transfers [which were set forth with great particularity in previous portions of her petition], or their meaning, until just before filing this suit, as aforesaid, and that she signed the Strat-ton deed under the representations and belief that they were all valid debts and liens [which is denied in other portions of her petition], but if she had known the tru.e circumstances, she would not have signed such deed.”
While the petition is very lengthy and somewhat involved, after a careful review of the same we think the trial court erred in sustaining the general demurrer thereto. We think it better that all of the issues herein should be tried together, for which reason our former judgment herein is set aside, and the judgment of the trial court is here reversed as an entirety, and this cause is remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.