Court Opinion

ID: 9825288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:30:31.960583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:39.822760
License: Public Domain

On the Merits. As we understand, the deed was set aside because the consideration was so inadequate as to constitute constructive fraud. There was no finding that the wife was guilty of actual fraud, fraud mala fides. Therefore, the trial court had the right to require the complainant to do equity by reimbursing the appellee the sum paid by her in reducing the amount of a prior lien on the property as a condition precedent to relief. “A fraudulent grantee cannot b§ required to account to the creditors of his vendor for any greater, amount than the value of the property acquired by him under the transfer, and he may relieve himself from liability to the creditors of his grantor by paying to bona fide creditors a sum of money equal to the value of such property, or he may claim credit pro tanto for a smaller sum so paid.” 12 R. C. L. § 148, p. 641. “If the grantee he innocent of any part in the fraud he may be allowed credit for any payments he has made in good faith.” 12 R. C. L. § 150, p. 643, and note; Cottingham v. Greely Barnham Grocery Co., 129 Ala. 200, 30 So. 560, 87 Am. St. Rep. 58.
The appellee’s answer set up the payment of a large part of the Giles mortgage debt, and the proof showed, and the trial *214court found, that she had paid $1,500. This was ¡but defensive matter bearing on the consideration of the conveyance and was available under the answer as a condition upou which the complainant would be entitled 10 relief. It was not such affirmative relief as required a cross-bill.
The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JX, concur.