122 So. 336 | Ala. | 1929
The bill is to quiet title and charges that one Haynes is setting up a claim to or upon the land involved. The bill also avers that the complainant claims title under a deed from the Herrens and that Haynes claims under a lien or title against the Herrens prior to his said deed. The Herrens were therefore proper, if not necessary, parties to the cause, and the bill was not subject to demurrer as for improper parties. Smith v. Gaines,
The Herrens being the common source of title of complainant, and the title or claim of the principal respondent, they should be given the opportunity to make good their warranty by giving evidence to defeat the adverse claim, or by removing such incumbrance, if sustained. *371
It is true that when the equity of a bill fails, it cannot be retained for granting relief available at law. Note 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) page 1065, Brauer v. Laughlin,
We think the bill presents a case well within the beneficial provisions of the statute, and seeks an opportunity to adjudge the rights and obligations of all parties in one suit.
Moreover, it is conceded that the bill states equity and prays for proper relief, and the fact that it may pray for further though unwarranted relief would not subject it to demurrer. This is redundant matter which should be disregarded. Wilks v. Wilks,
The trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the bill and a decree is here rendered overruling the same, and the decree of the circuit court is reversed and the cause is remanded.
Reversed, rendered, and remanded.
GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.