The complainant, Katie Bibb, filed her original bill of complaint against John Diffley d/b/a American Veneering Company, Guy Renfro and J. T. DeLoach. The bill sought to have a note and mortgage set aside on the ground that they were obtained by fraud. Demurrers were sustained to the original bill, and the complainant then filed an amended bill. Respondents Renfro and Diffley filed separate demurrers to the bill as amended and the court entered a decree sustaining the demurrers.
In the third paragraph of her amended bill, the complainant attempts to allege fraud in this manner:
We cannot ascertain from the bill which person it was who made the misrepresentations alleged in the third paragraph. But in the fifth paragraph, it is alleged that the respondent, Renfro, who is the mortgagee, had knowledge of the fraud. This is not a sufficient allegation to charge Renfro with fraud by concealment of facts. For aught that appears from the bill, Renfro could have made a complete disclosure of these facts to the appellant. And if it had been alleged that he had concealed the facts, he would still be guilty of no fraud in the absence of an allegation of facts showing a duty to disclose them. See McClelland v. Coston, 227 Ala. 267,149 So. 697(5); Pratt Land & Improvement Co. v. McClain, 135 Ala. 452, 33 So. 185; Griel v. Lomax, 89 Ala. 420, 6 So. 741; Van Arsdale & Co. v. Howard, 5 Ala. 596(2).
Paragraph seven of the bill is as follows:
This is apparently an attempt to charge respondent Diffley with perpetrating a fraud upon the complainant.
Since the bill of complaint nowhere shows that any of the misrepresentations actually induced the complainant to act to her injury, the demurrers raising that point were well taken. No relief will be given because of misrepresentations which are not shown to have been relied upon. See Bynum v. Rucker, 235 Ala. 353, 179 So. 241 (2, 3); Standard Oil Co. v. Myers, 232 Ala. 662, 169 So. 312 (9, 10); Wall v. Graham, 192 Ala. 396, 68 So. 298(1, 2).
We conclude that the court did not err in sustaining the demurrers to complainant's bill. The decree is therefore affirmed.
SIMPSON, GOODWYN and MERRILL, JJ., concur.