Alexander v. Mobile Auto Co.
Citation | 76 So. 944,200 Ala. 586 |
Decision Date | 15 November 1917 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 3 |
Parties | ALEXANDER v. MOBILE AUTO CO. |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Mobile County; Saffold Berney Judge.
Assumpsit by the Mobile Auto Company against John Alexander. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Transferred from the Court of Appeals under section 6, Act April 18, 1911, p. 449. Reversed and remanded.
Hugh M Caffey, Jr., of Mobile, for appellant.
Brooks & Crawford, of Mobile, for appellee.
This case presents the unusual question, whether the owner of personal property which he has contracted to sell can have a mechanic's lien thereon for repairs made at the request of the purchasing party in possession of the property.
The facts set out in the pleading are that appellee, Mobile Auto Company, contracted to sell appellant an automobile for $600 that most of the agreed purchase price was to be paid in 36 weekly installments. The contract in writing executed by the parties on March 6, 1915, contained the following stipulations:
It was thus agreed that the legal title to the car should remain in the auto company until the whole of the purchase money should be paid, and then only should vest in Alexander, and that on "any default" the auto company might exercise any one of the aforesaid options. The evidence showed default in the weekly payments due on the purchase price after about $200 had been paid.
The plaintiff company's agent, or alter ego, who sold the car, and had the authority, for the company, to exercise the option secured to the owner under the contract, testified that he took the automobile back about September, 1915, and still had it in possession at the date of the trial, October 19, 1916. On cross-examination his further explanation of that possession was:
On redirect examination witness' further explanation of that possession was:
*** "
The record shows the following other interrogatories to and answers of this witness on redirect examination:
On recross-examination the witness testified:
It will be observed that the effect of this explanation was no more than that the car was left at the garage by Alexander "for repairs," that witness inquired of the bookkeeper, how much was due on it, and was told by the latter, and that he held the car for the "last repairs" which were made thereon by that company.
The fair import of this testimony, under the replication, is not that when the car was last placed in the garage for repairs the repairs were made, and the car was then held for charges, but that when it was left there for repairs it was held for the charges on account of the repairs last theretofore made thereon. That other repairs had been made on the car is to be inferred from the concluding statement of the witness:
"I told him [defendant] that the car was getting further in debt all the time, and I wanted the repair bill paid, and he said he couldn't pay it, that he was not making money, and I told him that I would hold the automobile for the repair bill."
Under the plaintiff's replication, if it be conceded that it was correctly pleaded to the effect that prior to taking possession of the automobile he was engaged in the business of blacksmithing and furnishing mechanical labor and material for the repairing of automobiles, and had contributed at defendant's request such labor and material for repairing defendant's automobile, for the value of which labor and material, to wit, $413.12, the defendant refused and still refuses to pay, etc., and that plaintiff became entitled to a lien on said automobile for said labor and material, and was entitled to hold possession of said automobile by reason of the lien, to this extent the burden was cast on the plaintiff. This burden the plaintiff has failed to meet, if the blacksmith's lien averred be that authorized under the statute. Code of 1907, §§ 4785-4789.
Appellee insists, however, that it had the lien given by the common law to a blacksmith authorizing the retention in his possession of the vehicle, machine, or article on which he has bestowed labor and furnished material until the reasonable charges therefor are paid. 2 Kent's Com. 635; J.C. Walden Auto Co. v. Mixon, 196 Ala. 346, 71 So. 694. As to this lien, the testimony wholly fails to show the nature of the repairs made or of the material furnished, or their reasonable value, and fails to show when they were completed, whether at some former time or at the time the automobile last came into, and was detained at, the garage by the artisan or mechanic for such repairs. This proof was necessary under appellee's insistence and pleading.
There can be no common-law blacksmith's lien without a continuous possession of the property repaired. It rests on this immemorial custom thought necessary to protect mechanics or artisans engaged in a public calling of the kind involving frequent dealings (and generally small amounts) with strangers, impecunious persons, or travelers, touching whose credit the artisan may know nothing and whom he may not see again.
This common-law right to retain the property until the lien is discharged is waived or lost by a release of the property without enforcement. This rule does not authorize the artisan or machinist to thereafter retake the property and hold it under common-law right. Such a course was not sanctioned by the immemorial custom now relied on by plaintiff, and would easily invite breaches of the peace. Walden Auto Co. v. Mixon, 196 Ala. 346, 71 So. 694; Voss & Co. v. Robertson & Co., 46 Ala. 483; Mobile B. & L. Ass'n v. Robertson, 65 Ala. 382, 390; Lickbarron v. Mason, 6 East, 21, 27; White v. Smith, 44 N.J.Law, 105, 43 Am.Rep. 347; Mathias v. Sellers, 86 Pa. 486, 27 Am.Rep. 723; 25 Cyc. 675 (4); 4 Mod.Am.Law, p. 124.
The defendant's cross-examination of witness Hartwell was shown to be relevant by the statement of counsel to the court:
The court committed error in sustaining plaintiff's objection to defendant's question as to the auto company's having made repairs on defendant's second car sold to him by that company. This witness had stated that the company sold to the defendant such second car at the time the car in question was contracted for, but that said second car was conveyed to the defendant "by a separate bill of sale and not under the same conditions." The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Phillips v. Sipsey Coal Mining Co.
...... are irrevocable, without the mutual consent of the parties at. interest, Mobile Towing & Wrecking Co. v. Hartwell, . 208 Ala. 420, 95 So. 191; Alexander v. Mobile Auto. Co., ......
-
Becker Roofing Co. v. Wysinger
...Bk. v. Ben F. Barbour, etc., Co., supra." Later by Smith v. Haley, 210 Ala. 339, 98 So. 19, 20, declaring: "*** in Alexander v. Mobile Auto Co., 200 Ala. 586, 76 So. 944, is the general rule that one can create a lien on property to the extent only of his interest therein, and that this lie......
-
Fidelity Phenix Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. Raper
...... Co., 184 A.D. 876, 172 N.Y.S. 662, affirmed 230 N.Y. 547, 130 N.E. 888; Alexander v. Germania Fire Ins. Co., 66 N.Y. 464, 23 Am.Rep. 76, 4 Couch, Ency.Ins.Law,. § 969b; 3 ...v. Crumpton, 220 Ala. 297, 124 So. 870; Alexander v. Mobile Auto Co., 200 Ala. 586, 76 So. 944. . . It. results that the views expressed in the ......
-
Bromberg v. First Nat. Bank
...178 So. 48 235 Ala. 226 BROMBERG et al. v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF MOBILE et al. 1 Div. 975Supreme Court of AlabamaDecember 16, 1937 . Rehearing. Denied Jan. 20, ...v. Investors'. Syndicate, 223 Ala. 408, 137 So. 31; Alexander v. Mobile Auto Co., 200 Ala. 586, 76 So. 944; Robb v. Vos, 155 U.S. 13, 15 S.Ct. 4, 39 L.Ed. 52; ......