175 So. 288 | Ala. | 1937
The bill is by the guardian of a non compos mentis, and seeks the cancellation of a deed executed by his ward, prior to guardianship proceedings, to the defendant, her son.
The ground for cancellation is the alleged insanity of the grantor, the fraud and undue influence averred in general terms being referable solely to the matter of insanity, just as appears to have been the form of the bill considered in Wilkinson v. Wilkinson,
The ward is not a party; the guardian alone files the bill. The court would therefore be without authority to enter a decree binding upon the ward. Montgomery v. Duffey,
The present bill ignores this rule, and cannot be sustained. Moreover, the bill contains no averment of possession, and for aught appearing the remedy at law by suit in ejectment is adequate for all purposes, for accepting as true the bill's averments, the deed is void and would fall in a court of law. Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, supra; Boddie v. Bush,
As often here restated, inadequacy of a remedy at law is one of the foundation stones of equity jurisdiction, and it is a fundamental rule that before a complainant is entitled to relief in a court of equity he must have no plain and adequate remedy at law. Price v. Hall,
The bill is without equity, and the demurrer was due to be sustained.
Let the decree be reversed.
Reversed and remanded.
ANDERSON, C. J., and BOULDIN and FOSTER, JJ., concur.