BUHLER BROTHERS, INC. v. Alabama Grain Elevator Co.

• Decision Date: 19 December 1955
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 1470.
• Citation: 136 F. Supp. 582
• Parties: BUHLER BROTHERS, Inc., a corporation, Plaintiff, v. ALABAMA GRAIN ELEVATOR COMPANY, Inc., a corporation, A. W. Todd, as Interim Receiver of Alabama Grain Elevator Company, Inc., and Reconstruction Finance Corporation, a corporation, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama

136 F. Supp. 582

BUHLER BROTHERS, Inc., a corporation, Plaintiff, v. ALABAMA GRAIN ELEVATOR COMPANY, Inc., a corporation, A. W. Todd, as Interim Receiver of Alabama Grain Elevator Company, Inc., and Reconstruction Finance Corporation, a corporation, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 1470.

United States District Court S. D. Alabama, S. D.

December 19, 1955.

J. Edward Thornton, Vickers & Thornton, Mobile, Ala., for plaintiff.

James E. Moore and William J. Russell, Jr., Mobile, Ala., for Alabama Grain Elevator Co., Inc., and for A. W. Todd, as Interim Receiver.

T. E. Twitty (of Inge, Twitty, Armbrecht & Jackson), Mobile, Ala., for Reconstruction Finance Corp.

Thomas A. Hamilton (of Hamilton, Denniston, Butler & Riddick), Mobile, Ala., and Jack C. Gallalee (of Caffey, Gallalee & Caffey), Mobile, Ala., for Allan R. Cameron, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Alabama Grain Elevator.

THOMAS, District Judge.

The primary question for decision in this case is whether the Alabama mechanics' lien statute, article 3, § 25 et seq., Title 33 of the Code of Alabama of 1940, applies to pneumatic grain unloading equipment supplied by Buhler Bros., Inc., a New York corporation, to Alabama Grain Elevator Company, an Alabama corporation, at its plant on the Alabama State Docks in Mobile, Alabama.

This is an attachment suit commenced by plaintiff's filing an affidavit and bond under the provisions of section 26, Title 33 of the Code of Alabama. Issues were presented by pleadings filed by plaintiff, the trustee in bankruptcy for Alabama Grain Elevator Company (which was adjudicated a bankrupt subsequent to the institution of this proceeding), A. W. Todd, receiver for the elevator company (appointed by the circuit court of Mobile County as temporary receiver before this proceeding was instituted, and as permanent receiver subsequent to the commencement of this suit), and Reconstruction Finance Corporation.

The proof established that the plaintiff offered to construct, sell and deliver to the elevator company this equipment on June 8, 1954. This offer was accepted by the elevator company on July 21, 1954. Application was made by the elevator company to Reconstruction Finance Corporation, to borrow a substantial portion of the purchase price, which would be secured by a mortgage to be given Reconstruction Finance Corporation. Reconstruction Finance Corporation had previously made substantial loans to the elevator company which were secured by mortgages on all of the equipment belonging to the elevator company, and the mortgages contained so-called after acquired property clauses. By instrument dated July 20, 1954, one day before the offer was accepted, the elevator company gave Reconstruction Finance Corporation what was called an "After Acquired Property Mortgage" on the same property as that which is being sued for in this case. Reconstruction Finance Corporation issued its check payable jointly to the elevator company and plaintiff for this loan, but the check was never delivered to plaintiff, and after the elevator company got into financial difficulty, the check was returned to Reconstruction Finance Corporation.

The testimony shows that plaintiff designed this machine for this job. Some of the parts were bought by plaintiff and some were fabricated by plaintiff at its plant in New Jersey. The parts were shipped to Mobile and they arrived in December, 1954, and in accordance with the agreement, plaintiff furnished an engineer who supervised the installation of the machinery by the elevator company. The machinery was bolted onto the concrete dock. Its removal will not injure the freehold. It was constructed to facilitate the unloading of grain from vessels.

The principal contentions are (1) that plaintiff is not a "mechanic" within the meaning of this term in section 25 of Title 33 of the Code of Alabama; (2) that the lien is limited to ...