Opinion
7 Div. 89.
December 17, 1931.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; W. B. Merrill, Judge.
Harvey A. Emerson and S.W. Tate, both of Anniston, for appellants.
The bill in this case is multifarious, in that it sets up separate and distinct frauds between M. B. Green and the other three respondents, without averring a connection between such frauds and a joint participation therein by the respondents. Some community of interest between the parties respondent in the subject-matter must be averred and shown. There is a misjoinder of parties respondent. Lowery v. May, 213 Ala. 66, 104 So. 5; 21 C. J. 314, 408, 421; Frazier v. Frazier, 211 Ala. 176, 100 So. 118; McIntosh v. Alexander, 16 Ala. 87; Bentley v. Barnes, 155 Ala. 659, 47 So. 159; Webb v. Butler, 192 Ala. 287, 68 So. 369, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 815; Merritt v. Alabama Pyrites Co., 145 Ala. 252, 40 So. 1028; Singer v. Singer, 165 Ala. 144, 51 So. 755, 29 L.R.A. (N.S.) 819, 138 Am. St. Rep. 19, 21 Ann. Cas. 1102.
Merrill, Jones, Whiteside Allen, of Anniston, for appellee.
The fact that some of the respondents have no interest or concern with all the subjects of inquiry instituted in the bill does not render the bill multifarious. In a creditor's action to subject property fraudulently conveyed to payment of claim, different grantees, holding under separate conveyances, may be joined as defendants. Hard v. American Tr. Sav. Bank, 200 Ala. 264, 76 So. 30; Wilson v. First Nat. Bank, 209 Ala. 70, 95 So. 340; North Birmingham American Bank v. Realty Mortg. Co., 223 Ala. 30, 134 So. 796; McCarty v. Robinson, 222 Ala. 55, 130 So. 680. Bills seeking to have conveyances declared void, or in the alternative as a general assignment for benefit of creditors, are not multifarious. James Supply Co. v. Frost, 214 Ala. 226, 107 So. 57.
The bill in this case is by the appellee, a simple contract creditor, filed against its debtor and his alleged fraudulent grantees, to set aside and annul several conveyances made to each of said fraudulent grantees and subject the property conveyed to the satisfaction of the debt due the complainant.
The respondents' demurrer to the bill takes the points that the bill is multifarious because it joined several grantees of the debtor, who were claiming under separate and distinct conveyances, and that there is a misjoinder of parties defendant.
It is well settled that different grantees of the same debtor, though they claim and hold under different conveyances affecting different property, may be joined in the same bill to cancel such conveyances and subject the property to the satisfaction of the debts due from their common grantor. Wilson v. First Nat. Bank of Gadsden, 209 Ala. 70, 95 So. 340; Harrison et al. v. Stuart, 219 Ala. 405, 122 So. 623; McCarty v. Robinson et al., 222 Ala. 55, 130 So. 680.
Nor is such bill multifarious because it seeks, in the alternative, to have such conveyances declared a general assignment for the benefit of creditors. James Supply Co. et al. v. Frost et al., 214 Ala. 226, 107 So. 57; Smith v. Young, 173 Ala. 197, 55 So. 425.
The demurrer to the bill was not well taken and was properly overruled.
Affirmed.
ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.