Opinion
8 Div. 398.
June 29, 1922.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Limestone County; Robert C. Brickell, Judge.
Walker Sanders, of Athens, for appellants.
Multifariousness is where a defendant is brought in upon a record with a large portion of which he has no connection, or where complainant demands several different matters of different nature of different defendants by the same bill. 192 Ala. 287, 68 So. 369, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 815; 165 Ala. 189, 51 So. 757; 200 Ala. 70, 75 So. 398; 168 Ala. 398, 53 So. 260; 116 Ala. 495, 22 So. 863; 155 Ala. 659, 47 So. 159.
Horton Patton and Fred Wall, all of Athens, for appellees.
The bill of a simple contract creditor is not multifarious, which seeks to establish complainant's debt and at the same time seeks to subject property of the defendant which has been fraudulently conveyed; and the purpose of the bill being single, and for the satisfaction of complainant's claim from the property of the defendant, he has the right to set aside any fraudulent transfers, in order to make such property subject to his claims. 67 Ala. 396; 75 Ala. 348; 200 Ala. 264, 76 So. 30; 84 Ala. 600, 4 So. 725; 80 Ala. 225; 104 Ala. 353, 16 So. 67; 80 Ala. 147.
Speaking to the rule against multifariousness, as applied before its liberalization by statute, this court (Hard v. American Trust Savings Bank, 200 Ala. 264, 76 So. 30) has recently said:
"The declaration and effectuation of the creditor's right to have his debt discharged out of the debtor's property, and to pursue and subject the debtor's property thereunto by avoiding conveyances or transfers invalidly made or to have a transfer of substantially all of the debtor's property pronounced a general assignment under the statute (Code, § 4295), are all directly referable to, and immediately connected with, the creditor's right to have his demand satisfied out of his debtor's property. The fact that some of the respondents have no interest in or concern with all of the subjects of inquiry instituted by a bill in equity did not render the bill multifarious even before the enactment of Code, § 3095."
Many cases might be cited in support of that statement of the law, but a single one, which illustrates it clearly and fully, will here suffice, viz. Lehman et al. v. Meyer et al., 67 Ala. 396. In that case it was distinctly held that in creditors' bills persons holding portions of the debtor's property under separate and independent conveyances may be joined as respondents.
The scope and purpose of this bill, as amended, come clearly within the rule as stated above, and we hold that it is not multifarious, and shows no misjoinder of parties.
The demurrers were therefore properly overruled, and the decree will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELLAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.