Woodall v. Southern Mfg. Co., 7 Div. 2.

Citation135 So. 446,223 Ala. 262
Decision Date18 June 1931
Docket Number7 Div. 2.
PartiesWOODALL v. SOUTHERN MFG. CO.
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; O. A. Steele, Judge.

Bill to enforce a materialman's lien by the Southern Manufacturing Company against Mrs. Willie L. Woodall. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill, respondent appeals.

Affirmed.

Miller & Miller, of Gadsden, for appellant.

W. T. Murphree, of Gadsden, for appellee.

THOMAS, J.

The appeal is from a decree overruling demurrer to the bill as amended to enforce the materialman's lien on real property improved.

The original bill, exhibits, and the amendment will be considered together as one pleading, and may supplement the other on demurrer. Grimsley v. First Ave. Coal & Lbr. Co., 217 Ala. 159, 115 So. 90.

The right to proceed in equity for the enforcement of liens of this character is given by section 8842 of the Code.

The allegation of the bill is that, after the home was finished, the parties had an agreement as to when the price of the materials was to be paid. The debt therefore matured in the agreed monthly installments averred, and this was not a novation of the building contract with the owner, and not a discharge of the lien thereon.

A court of equity will not enforce the claim of respondent that the suit was brought before the claim accrued. It is averred the installment payments were not made before the bankruptcy, and she may not, while in default and bankruptcy, secure a homestead freed of the builder's lien, under an agreement of extended payments or accrual of the claim. The suit was not instituted before the maturity of the debt. Lane & Bodley Co. v. Jones, 79 Ala. 156; Cutcliff v. McAnally, 88 Ala. 507, 7 So. 331. The suit for lien was within six months after the debt accrued according to the contract fixing the due date thereof. Section 8855, Code; Lane & Bodley Co. v. Jones, supra.

The bill averred that a part of the debt had matured according to contract and when the bill was filed; and, if the entire debt had not matured, no apt ground was directed to that phase.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C.J., and SAYRE and BROWN, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Bankers' Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Sloss, 6 Div. 511.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 7, 1934
    ......CO. v. SLOSS et al. 6 Div. 511. Supreme Court of Alabama June 7, 1934 . . Appeal. from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Wm. ...159, 115 So. 90; Webb v. Sprott, . 225 Ala. 600, 144 So. 569; Woodall v. Southern Mfg. Co., 223 Ala. 262, 135 So. 446; Hobson v. Robertson, ......
  • Schwab v. Carter
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 12, 1933
    ......450 226 Ala. 173 SCHWAB v. CARTER ET AL. 6 Div. 168.Supreme Court of AlabamaJanuary 12, 1933 . ... the other. Woodall v. Southern Mfg. Co., 223 Ala. 262, 135 So. 446; ......
  • Cumens v. Garrett
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • September 25, 1975
    ...to give a lien claimant 'a concurrent remedy in equity.' Floyd v. Rambo, 250 Ala. 101, 104, 33 So.2d 360 (1948); Woodall v. Southern Mfg. Co., 223 Ala. 262, 135 So. 446 (1931); Mathis v. Holman, 204 Ala. 373, 85 So. 710 (1920). Other statutes pertinent to the decision in this case are secti......
  • Gains v. Griffin, 7 Div. 117.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 9, 1932
    ...... supplements the other. Grimsley v. First Avenue Coal &. Lumber Co., 217 Ala. 159, 115 So. 90; Federal. Automobile Ins. Ass'n v. Abrams, 217 ...v. Jacks. et al., 222 Ala. 475, 132 So. 721; Woodall v. Southern Mfg. Co., 223 Ala. 262, 135 So. 446. . . The. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT