Bufford v. Raney

• Decision Date: 01 June 1899
• Citation: 122 Ala. 565,26 So. 120
• Parties: BUFFORD v. RANEY.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

26 So. 120

122 Ala. 565

BUFFORD v. RANEY.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 1, 1899

Appeal from circuit court, Jefferson county; James J. Banks, Judge.

Action of detinue by Ike Bufford against G. W. Raney. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

The plaintiff as a witness in his own behalf, testified that the horse sued for formerly belonged to one Joe Woods, and on March 4, 1896, Joe Woods and his wife came to the plaintiff and told him that his horse had been levied upon under an execution issued against said Woods in favor of one Dr Smith, and would be sold by the constable levying the execution unless he could get some one to satisfy said execution; that he, Woods, had given to the defendant, Raney a mortgage on said horse, but that Raney had told him he could not hold the horse under the mortgage, as against the execution, because the lien of the execution was superior to that of the mortgage and that for him, Woods, to get some one to pay off the execution for him; that thereupon he, the plaintiff, purchased and took possession of the horse sued for from the said Woods, upon the consideration that he should satisfy said execution, which he did, and with the further understanding that said Woods might buy the horse back by paying to the plaintiff the amount he had so paid in purchasing the horse. The other witnesses introduced for the plaintiff, further testified, that after so purchasing the horse, he had continuous possession of him, except that he let said Woods have the horse to cultivate his crop in the years 1896 and 1897; that while said Woods was thus in possession of the horse by promise of the plaintiff, the defendant took him out of the pasture without the plaintiff's knowledge or consent. The testimony of the other witnesses introduced for the plaintiff corroborated the testimony of the plaintiff. After the witness, Joe Woods introduced by the plaintiff testified, on cross-examination that he executed the mortgage to the defendant, the defendant thereupon offered to introduce said mortgage in evidence. This mortgage was executed on February 5, 1896, and was given by the said Joe Woods to the defendant to secure the payment of a note for $50, executed by the said Joe Woods to the defendant on February 5, 1896, and payable December 2, 1896. The mortgage covered the horse sued for and the crop of cotton raised during the current year. The plaintiff objected to the introduction of said mortgage in evidence, upon the following grounds: "(1) The defendant did not show that said mortgage was given for a bona fide subsisting debt, and (2) because the defendant had failed to show that the making of said mortgage contract was a bona fide contract, untainted with fraud actual or intentional on the part of the mortgagee." The court overruled this objection permitted the defendant to introduce said mortgage in evidence, and to this the plaintiff duly excepted. The plaintiff asked the witness, Joe Woods, the following question: "Whether or not said mortgage was given by him and accepted by Mr. Raney for the purpose of beating said Dr Smith out of his debt for the collection of which said execution had been issued and levied upon said horse." To this question the witness replied in substance that said mortgage was given at the defendant's request for the purpose of keeping said Dr. Smith from making his money out of the horse. The defendant objected to the question and answer, and moved the court to exclude the answer from the jury, because it was irrelevant and immaterial. The court sustained the objection, and to this ruling the plaintiff duly excepted. This witness, Joe Woods, then testified that at the time he executed said mortgage to said G. W. Raney, he was not indebted to him in any sum whatever, and that he was not indebted to him at the time he (witness) sold said horse to said Bufford, but that he did get indebted to him...