From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boasberg v. Cooke

Supreme Court of Alabama
Oct 8, 1931
136 So. 797 (Ala. 1931)

Opinion

7 Div. 963.

October 8, 1931.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Clair County; O. A. Steele, Judge.

Frank B. Embry, of Pell City, and Morton Nesmith and C. C. Nesmith, both of Birmingham, for appellant.

On the questions of the right of appellant to recover, counsel cite Stoutz v. Huger, 107 Ala. 248, 18 So. 126; Noble v. Gillam, 136 Ala. 618, 33 So. 861; Cooke v. Fenner Beane, 214 Ala. 558, 108 So. 370; Darden v. Mann, 163 Ala. 297, 50 So. 1033.

M. M. Smith and W. T. Starnes, both of Pell City, W. C. Davis, of Jasper, and Victor Smith and R. B. Evins, both of Birmingham, for appellee.

The allegations and proof in suits in equity must set forth and support the same cause of action. A party cannot state one case in his pleadings and a different one by his proof. Hooper v. Strahan, 71 Ala. 75; American Mfg. Co. v. Sewell, 92 Ala. 163, 9 So. 143, 13 L.R.A. 299. A judgment cannot be proved by the certificate thereof. Warren v. Jones, 219 Ala. 213, 121 So. 519.


Bill by alleged judgment creditor to subject property alleged to have been conveyed in fraud of creditors.

The case involves the same transactions considered by this court in Cooke v. Fenner Beane, 214 Ala. 558, 108 So. 370, and Cooke v. Wilbanks, ante, p. 312, 135 So. 435.

The bill avers complainant was an existing creditor at the time of such transactions. In the evidence it developed that the original indebtedness upon which the alleged judgment was recovered was created subsequent to the alleged fraudulent transfers. This was a fatal variance. The issues are different. McCrory v. Donald, 192 Ala. 312, 68 So. 306; Manchuria S. S. Co. v. Harry G. G. Donald Co., 200 Ala. 638, 77 So. 12.

It may be said also there is a failure of proof of material averments of the bill; averments going to the status of complainant as an existing creditor.

The existence of a judgment as alleged was put in issue by the answer.

A duly certified transcript of the judgment itself, not the certificate made by the clerk for registration in the office of the judge of probate, is the proper evidence of the judgment. Such certificate made and recorded for the purpose of effecting a judgment lien cannot be substituted for the judgment itself, where the issues call for proof of the fact of an existing judgment. Warren v. Jones, 219 Ala. 213, 121 So. 519.

The decree denying relief may be sustained for the above reasons; and we need not consider whether the evidence makes out a case in favor of a subsequent creditor.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and FOSTER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Boasberg v. Cooke

Supreme Court of Alabama
Oct 8, 1931
136 So. 797 (Ala. 1931)
Case details for

Boasberg v. Cooke

Case Details

Full title:BOASBERG v. COOKE

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Oct 8, 1931

Citations

136 So. 797 (Ala. 1931)
136 So. 797

Citing Cases

Williams v. Schaeffer

The only proper evidence of such judgment is a duly certified transcript of the judgment itself. A…

Newell v. Armstrong

The rule as to existing and subsequent creditors has been given frequent expression in our decisions. McCrory…