Bradford v. Proctor
Decision Date | 26 April 1923 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 545. |
Citation | 96 So. 203,209 Ala. 299 |
Parties | BRADFORD v. PROCTOR. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.
Action in detinue by Wallace Bradford, by his next friend, R. O Starkey, against Charles Bradford, in which J. A. Proctor intervened as claimant. From a judgment for claimant plaintiff appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Acts 1911, p. 449, § 6. Affirmed.
Bouldin & Wimberly, of Scottsboro, for appellant.
Proctor & Snodgrass, of Scottsboro, for appellee.
This was a claim suit in detinue. The judgment, by the court, was for the claimant. The issue was the superiority of respective mortgages given by the defendant in detinue, on which the plaintiff and the claimant, respectively, rest their title and right to the immediate possession of the personal property made the subject of the suit. The plaintiff appeals and assigns as error the judgment of the court in favor of the claimant for the mule sued for and made the subject of the claim.
Plaintiff's muniment of title purports to have been given of date of February 23, 1921, and filed in the probate office for record on the 9th day of May, its due date being November 15, 1921. It evidenced plaintiff's right, title, and interest in the mule, and was a mortgage, not a pledge. Oden v. Vaughn, 204 Ala. 445, 450, 85 So. 779. The evidence is sufficient to show a transfer of the personal property as security for the debt contracted in its purchase. That is to say, it is shown the parties intended a sale of the mule by its mortgage as "security" for the debt. Lewis v. Davis, 198 Ala. 81, 73 So. 419; Boyett v. Hahn, 197 Ala. 439, 73 So. 79; Deramus v. Deramus, 204 Ala. 144, 85 So. 397; Ellington v. Charleston, 51 Ala. 166; Bryant v. Bryant, 35 Ala. 315; Strong v. Gregory, 19 Ala. 146.
Claimant objected to the introduction in evidence of the foregoing mortgage, and, pending the objection, the plaintiff gave evidence substantiating the fact that it was the intention of the parties that the instrument was given as a purchase-money mortgage for the mule, as follows:
On cross-examination the plaintiff testified:
The evidence further showed that the reasonable value of the mule was $127.
A purchase-money mortgage, if conveying the legal title, has the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Palmer v. James
...price, since the possession was parted with by the seller. Oden v. Vaughn, 204 Ala. 445, 450, 85 So. 779; Bradford v. Proctor, 209 Ala. 299, 96 So. 203. Warvelle on Vendors, vol. 2 (2d Ed.) § 771, p. 914, it is said: "But whatever may have been the ancient rule, the law at the present time ......
-
Yancey v. Denham
...or without advertisement, if the indebtedness secured hereby is not paid at maturity, viz.: [Describing the horses]." In Bradford v. Proctor, 209 Ala. 299, 96 So. 203, held an instrument of like form as the above to be an equitable mortgage which would not sustain an action of detinue. Plea......
-
Director General of Railroads v. Bright-Eidson & Co.
... ... p. 449, § 6. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals ... Reversed and remanded ... Street ... & Bradford, of Guntersville, for appellant ... Rayburn, ... Wright & Rayburn, of Guntersville, for appellee ... McCLELLAN, ... ...