134 So. 796 | Ala. | 1931
The bill of complaint, before and after amendment, is not a general creditor's bill and merely seeks to set aside a conveyance from Watford, the debtor, to his wife as voluntary and subordinate to the complainant's claim, and it seems that such a bill is permissible. Tissier v. Wailes (Ala. Sup.) 39 So. 924; Eaton v. Patterson Hinchman, 2 Stew. P. 9. And the creditor first filing the bill and obtaining process acquires the prior lien, which would prevail against creditors subsequently coming in. Mathews v. Mobile Mutual Ins. Co.,
The amendment simply brought the North Birmingham American Bank in, because of the acquirement of a mortgage on the property involved, during the lis pendens, and to have the complainant's claim declared prior thereto. This was in no sense a departure, nor did it render the bill multifarious. It related to the same property and simply sought to subject the same to complainant's demand. Moreover, it seems well settled that, in an action by a creditor to subject property fraudulently conveyed to the payment of his claim, different grantees, holding under separate and distinct fraudulent conveyances, may be joined in one action as defendants. McCarty v. Robinson,
The bill, before amendment, contained equity, and while the mortgage from the grantee, Mrs. Watford, was within the lis pendens and subject to the complainant's claim if established (Wise v. State,
In the case of Bartee v. Matthews,
In the case of Ark-Ala Lumber Co. v. Powell,
The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
SAYRE, THOMAS, and BROWN, JJ., concur.