Hill v. Hill

14 Citing cases

  1. Hadley v. Hall

    123 So. 2d 135 (Ala. 1960)   Cited 2 times

    The true consideration may always be shown by parol, except only the character thereof may not be changed. Moore v. Williamson, 213 Ala. 274, 104 So. 645, 42 A.L.R. 981; Montgomery v. Hart, 225 Ala. 471, 144 So. 101. Resumption of the marriage relation by wife after separation is not a valid consideration for a deed from husband to wife. 41 C.J.S. Husband and Wife §§ 130, 136, 143; Hill v. Hill, 217 Ala. 235, 115 So. 258; Little v. Redditt, 264 Ala. 371, 88 So.2d 354; 26 Am.Jur. 325; Re Kesler's Estate, 143 Pa. 386, 22 A. 892, 13 L.R.A. 581; Miller v. Miller, 78 Iowa 177, 35 N.W. 464, 42 N.W. 641. STAKELY, Justice.

  2. Smith v. Smith

    17 So. 2d 400 (Ala. 1944)   Cited 7 times

    Relation of husband and wife is confidential, and slightest suspicious circumstances will require husband to produce satisfactory proof negativing undue influence. Ray v. Ray, 238 Ala. 269, 189 So. 895; Hill v. Hill, 217 Ala. 235, 115 So. 258; Code 1940, Tit. 34, § 74. BOULDIN, Justice.

  3. Ray v. Ray

    189 So. 895 (Ala. 1939)   Cited 11 times

    The wife may contract with the husband, and under certain conditions the contract is not subject to the rule as to confidential relations. Code 1923, § 8272; Rash v. Bogart, 226 Ala. 284, 146 So. 814; Harraway v. Harraway, 136 Ala. 499, 34 So. 836; Hill v. Hill, 217 Ala. 235, 115 So. 258; Crowder v. Crowder, 217 Ala. 230, 115 So. 256; Waller v. Nelson, 106 Ala. 535, 18 So. 154. The wife may give her property to her husband. Sample v. Guyer, 143 Ala. 613, 42 So. 106; Bell v. Henderson Nat. Bank, 225 Ala. 398, 143 So. 568.

  4. Bell v. Henderson Nat. Bank

    143 So. 568 (Ala. 1932)   Cited 7 times

    The deed from complainant to her husband was void or at least voidable at her election. Henderson v. Brunson, 141 Ala. 674, 37 So. 549; Crowder v. Crowder, 217 Ala. 230, 115 So. 256; Hill v. Hill, 217 Ala. 235, 115 So. 258. A mortgage or other security given by the wife to secure a debt of a husband is absolutely void and conveys no title. The court in such cases looks through form to substance. Code 1923, § 8272; Hendon v. Hendon, 219 Ala. 159, 121 So. 534: Smith v. Rothchild Co., 212 Ala. 276, 102 So. 207.

  5. Tibbs v. Anderson

    580 So. 2d 1337 (Ala. 1991)   Cited 29 times
    Reversing trial court's judgment and holding that ante-nuptial agreement was fair, just, and equitable from wife's perspective when evidence demonstrated that wife chose not to secure outside legal advice about agreement and wife had a general knowledge of the husband's estate

    Although the parties to this appeal present their arguments only under the case law concerning prenuptial agreements, we think the judgment of the trial court can also be sustained under the statutory law concerning postnuptial contracts. See Ala. Code 1975, § 30-4-9; see also Ray v. Ray, 238 Ala. 269, 189 So. 895 (1939); Hill v. Hill, 217 Ala. 235, 115 So. 258 (1928); Crowder v. Crowder, 217 Ala. 230, 115 So. 256 (1928); Manfredo v. Manfredo, 191 Ala. 322, 68 So. 157 (1915); Harraway v. Harraway, 136 Ala. 499, 34 So. 836 (1902) At the outset, we note that prenuptial and postnuptial agreements are valid in Alabama.

  6. Hall v. Cosby

    288 Ala. 191 (Ala. 1972)   Cited 18 times

    Griffin Griffin, Huntsville, for appellant. A husband's transfer to himself of his wife's property under a power of attorney, without her knowledge, consent or ratification of the transfer, and without consideration, is void. Clay v. Cummins, 201 Ala. 34, 77 So. 328; Ray v. Ray, 238 Ala. 269, 189 So. 845; Waddell v. Lanier, 62 Ala. 347; Clifford v. Armstrong, 176 Ala. 441, 58 So. 430; Myers v. Ellison, 249 Ala. 367, 31 So.2d 353; Seeberg v. Norville, 204 Ala. 20, 85 So. 505; Crowder v. Crowder, 217 Ala. 230, 115 So. 256; Hill v. Hill, 217 Ala. 235, 115 So. 258; Manfredo v. Manfredo, 191 Ala. 322, 68 So. 157; Re Acken, 144 Iowa 519, 123 N.W. 187. The law presumes the exercise of undue influence in transactions inter vivos where confidential relations exist between the parties, and puts upon the donee or grantee, when shown to be the dominant party in the relation, the burden of repelling the presumption by competent and satisfactory evidence. Webb v. Webb, 250 Ala. 194, 33 So.2d 909; Nelson v. Brown, 164 Ala. 397, 51 So. 360; Merchants' Natl. Bank of Mobile v. Hubbard, 222 Ala. 518, 523(8, 9), 133 So. 723; Title 34, Section 74, Code of Alabama.

  7. Davis v. Davis

    50 So. 2d 723 (Ala. 1951)   Cited 4 times

    The principle is conceded, as is the rule that gifts by the wife to the husband will be scrutinized with close suspicion, and the court on the appearance of the slightest circumstance of suspicion should require of the husband satisfactory proof that the transaction resulted from the purely voluntary and well-understood act of the wife. Hill v. Hill, 217 Ala. 235, 115 So. 258; Ray v. Ray, 238 Ala. 269, 189 So. 895. But the record to our minds sufficiently establishes that these gifts to the husband were not coerced or of that undue influence to come within the purview of the afore-stated principles.

  8. Bailey v. McQueen

    45 So. 2d 295 (Ala. 1950)   Cited 7 times

    Dunson v. Henn, 178 Ala. 152, 57 So. 54; Jones v. Keene, 220 Ala. 397, 125 So. 665. Gifts procured and purchases made by husbands from their wives should be scrutinized with suspicion and require satisfactory proof. Cochran v. Cochran, 247 Ala. 588, 25 So.2d 693; Tipton v. Tipton, 249 Ala. 537, 32 So.2d 32; Code 1940, Tit. 34, § 74; Hill v. Hill, 217 Ala. 235, 115 So. 258; Crowder v. Crowder, 217 Ala. 230, 115 So. 256; 26 C.J.S., Deeds, § 193, page 609. Appellant having assumed the defense that the signature to the deed was actually placed by the wife, he is bound by that defense, and the court cannot be put in error on the theory that the deed may have been signed by another and the wife could have adopted such signature. Wright v. Fannin, 229 Ala. 278, 156 So. 849.

  9. Cochran v. Cochran

    25 So. 2d 693 (Ala. 1946)   Cited 16 times

    The grantor in a deed is not required to assert its invalidity on ground of undue influence as long as he continues in enjoyment of the property or as long as such undue influence continues to be exercised against him. Kelly v. Tatum, 222 Ala. 655, 133 So. 703. The law presumes exercise of undue influence where confidential relations exist between parties, such as husband and wife; and grantee, when shown to be dominant party, has burden of rebutting such presumption by competent evidence. Nelson v. Brown, 164 Ala. 397, 51 So. 360, 137 Am.St.Rep. 61; Robinson v. Griffin, 173 Ala. 372, 56 So. 124; Young v. Love, 186 Ala. 292, 65 So. 337; Manfredo v. Manfredo, 191 Ala. 322, 68 So. 157; Crowder v. Crowder, 217 Ala. 230, 115 So. 256; Hill v. Hill, 217 Ala. 235, 115 So. 258; Smith v. Smith, 245 Ala. 420, 17 So.2d 400; Floyd v. Green, 238 Ala. 42, 188 So. 867; Ray v. Ray, 238 Ala. 269, 189 So. 895; Fisk v. Stubbs, 30 Ala. 335; Royal v. Goss, 154 Ala. 117, 45 So. 231; Gilley v. Denman, 185 Ala. 561, 64 So. 97; Adair v. Craig, 135 Ala. 332, 33 So. 902; Frederick v. Hartley, 202 Ala. 43, 79 So. 381; Verner v. Mosely, 221 Ala. 36, 127 So. 527. Irby A. Keener, of Centre, for appellee.

  10. Jones v. Jones

    18 So. 2d 365 (Ala. 1944)   Cited 6 times

    Coon v. Henderson, 240 Ala. 492, 199 So. 704; Id., 242 Ala. 144, 5 So.2d 397; Hamm v. Butler, 215 Ala. 572, 112 So. 141. All transactions between husband and wife are subject to rules of persons standing in confidential relationship. Code 1940, Tit. 34, § 74; Hill v. Hill, 217 Ala. 235, 115 So. 258; Ray v. Ray, 238 Ala. 269, 189 So. 895; Thompson v. Lee, 31 Ala. 292; Lester v. Mahan, 25 Ala. 445, 60 Am.Dec. 530; Street v. Alexander City Bank, 203 Ala. 97, 82 So. 111; Alabama Chem. Co. v. Hall, 212 Ala. 8, 101 So. 456; Manfredo v. Manfredo, 191 Ala. 322, 68 So. 157. On mortgage accounting, only those items fairly intended by parties at time of making mortgage can properly be included in mortgage account; would not include suretyship.