72 So. 497 | Ala. | 1916
■ In view of the frequency with which cases of this peculiar character appear in the books, I am disposed to state in a general way my belief that relief might have been had on a .bill differently framed but for the fact that the property has passed into the hands of a purchaser whom I assume was a purchaser for value without notice of complainant’s equity. The courts very generally have found a way in such cases. — Davis v. Davis, 130 Ala. St. Rep., note on page 1040 et seq.; 6 Pom. Eq. Jur. § 686, note. I
We are all agreed that on the facts alleged in the bill before us complainant can have no relief, and that the demurrer to it should have been sustained.
Reversed and remanded.