Court Opinion

ID: 9825287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:30:31.958241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:39.822159
License: Public Domain

ANDERSON, Chief Justice.
This case has been here before. 224 Ala. 566, 141 So. 223. The decree of the trial court in setting aside the conveyance of the debtor, Buell, to his wife was affirmed. Afterwards, the trial court ordered a sale of the property, and on August 11, 1932, rendered a decree, the effect of same providing for the reimbursement of the grantee Mrs. Buell’s $1,500 paid by her on the Giles mortgage which was a prior lien to the complainant’s judgment, and the payment of the mortgage by Mrs. Buell was assumed as a part of the consideration for the conveyance made her by her husband. The decree of September 19, '1931, did not deal with this $1,500. It was mentioned in the opinion, but not the decree. Therefore, the decree of August 11, 1932, and the one the next day explaining and modifying the one of the 11th, was such a final decree as to the allowance of this $1,-500 as will support this appeal and the motion to dismiss same is overruled.