A court of equity will not decree a forfeiture except where provided by statute. Tuskegee Homes Co. v. Oswalt, 248 Ala. 64, 26 So.2d 865; Citizens Bank v. Grigsby, 170 Miss. 655, 155 So. 684; Williams v. Gen. Insurors, 193 Miss. 276, 7 So.2d 876. 23 Am.Jur., Forfeitures and Penalties 599, § 2. Abatement of a nuisance does not warrant confiscation and destruction of the property creating the nuisance.
Mindler v. Crocker, 245 Ala. 578, 18 So.2d 278; Zeigler v. Coffin, 219 Ala. 586, 123 So. 22, 63 A.L.R. 942; Raney v. Raney, 216 Ala. 30, 112 So. 313; Bancroft v. Otis, 91 Ala. 279, 8 So. 286. Where there are other circumstances which indicate undue influence, disregard of natural objects of testator's bounty is evidence upon this issue. Fountain v. Brown, 38 Ala. 72; Cleveland Storage Co. v. Guardian Trust Co., 222 Ala. 210, 131 So. 634; Tuskegee Homes v. Oswalt, 248 Ala. 64, 26 So.2d 865; Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Finley, 250 Ala. 350, 34 So.2d 465; Cullman Property Co. v. H. H. Hitt Lumber Co., 201 Ala. 150, 77 So. 574; Merrill v. Ritch, 235 Ala. 155, 177 So. 886. When decree is in opposition to material testimony not controverted it cannot be allowed to stand.
The general rule is that where a court of equity assumes jurisdiction of a cause, it will retain the bill and do complete justice. Whaley v. Wilson, 112 Ala. 627, 20 So. 922; Bowden v. Turner, 243 Ala. 182, 8 So.2d 849; Tuskegee Homes Co. v. Oswalt, 248 Ala. 64, 26 So.2d 865. We hold, therefore, the bill as to this phase of the case was also well filed.
The same is true as to a discovery in aid of a legal demand. Cleveland Storage Co. v. Guardian Trust Co., 222 Ala. 210, 131 So. 634; Tuskegee Homes Co. v. Oswalt, 248 Ala. 64, 26 So.2d 865; Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Finley, 250 Ala. 350, 34 So.2d 465; Young v. Dean, 253 Ala. 211, 44 So.2d 12. We need not analyze the bill to determine if it satisfies those requirements, since we think it has equity to bring to a settlement an executor de son tort.
The court denied a motion to dismiss, holding, in substance, that plaintiff was entitled to try the issue although the purchase was made in the course of business. It was pointed out that, if his contention was true, he had not wilfully violated the act and, hence, was not in pari delicto with the defendant. Likewise in Tuskegee Homes Co. v. Oswalt, 248 Ala. 64 (26 South. [2d] 865), plaintiff claimed fraud and misrepresentation, and also ignorance that the prices it had paid defendant were actually in excess of the maximum prices fixed under the Federal act. In all of the cases cited, and in others of similar character, questions were involved which served to differentiate them from the case at bar.