Opinion
4 Div. 797.
May 9, 1935.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dale County; J. S. Williams, Judge.
Chas. O. Stokes, of Ozark, for appellants.
The bill is multifarious in that it seeks relief as to two distinct subjects having no connection with or dependence on each other. Code 1923, § 6526; Singer v. Singer, 165 Ala. 144, 51 So. 755, 29 L.R.A. (N.S.) 819, 138 Am. St. Rep. 19, 21 Ann. Cas. 1102; Lee v. Birmingham, 223 Ala. 196, 135 So. 314.
Sollie Sollie, of Ozark, for appellee.
The bill has but one object, payment of complainant's debt. That respective respondents are not alleged to be interested in all the questions or do not lay claim to all the property involved does not render the bill multifarious. Hardie-Tynes Mfg. Co. v. Cruise, 189 Ala. 66, 66 So. 657; Guyton v. Terrell, 132 Ala. 66, 31 So. 83; Henderson v. Farley Nat. Bank, 123 Ala. 547, 26 So. 226, 82 Am. St. Rep. 140; Hill v. Moone, 104 Ala. 353, 16 So. 67; Steiner L. L. Co. v. King, 118 Ala. 546, 24 So. 35; Northwestern Land Ass'n v. Grady, 137 Ala. 219, 33 So. 874; Lamar Rankin Drug Co. v. Jones, 155 Ala. 474, 46 So. 763; Kimbrough v. Alred, 202 Ala. 413, 80 So. 617; Spear v. Va.-C. Chem. Co., 225 Ala. 17, 142 So. 33; Randle v. Boyd, 73 Ala. 282; Butler Co. v. A. G. Henry Co., 202 Ala. 155, 79 So. 630; Truss v. Miller, 116 Ala. 494, 495, 22 So. 863; Mitchell v. Cudd, 196 Ala. 162, 71 So. 660; Forcheimer v. Foster, 192 Ala. 218, 68 So. 879; Hunter v. Briggs, 184 Ala. 327, 63 So. 1004; Mathews v, J. F. Carroll Merc. Co., 195 Ala. 501, 70 So. 143.
This is a bill by a contract creditor, whose debt is secured by a chattel mortgage, for discovery and relief. The relief sought is the foreclosure of a chattel mortgage, and to avoid a voluntary conveyance of the real estate described in the bill, made by the debtor to his son and codefendant. The discovery sought is in respect to the location and identity of the property covered by the chattel mortgage.
The bill is single in its purpose — to subject the property of the debtor to the satisfaction of his debt due the complainant.
The demurrers to the bill were not well taken and were properly overruled. Code 1923, §§ 6526, 7342; Rice et al. v. Eiseman Bros. Co. et al., 122 Ala. 343, 25 So. 214; Douglass Cotton Oil Co. et al. v. Alabama Machinery Supply Co. et al., 205 Ala. 51, 87 So. 342; Comer v. Lehman, Durr Co., 87 Ala. 362, 6 So. 264; J. E. Butler Co. et al. v. A. G. Henry Co., 202 Ala. 155, 79 So. 630; Hanson v. Luther, 229 Ala. 256, 156 So. 771.
Affirmed.
ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.