Carlisle v. People's Bank

Decision Date30 May 1899
Citation122 Ala. 446,26 So. 115
CourtAlabama Supreme Court
PartiesCARLISLE v. PEOPLE'S BANK.

Appeal from circuit court, Pike county; W. W. Kirkland, Judge.

Detinue by the People's Bank against H. C. Carlisle. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

After the introduction in evidence of the mortgage under which the plaintiff claimed title to the property sued for, the plaintiff offered to introduce in evidence a bond for title which was given by W. B. Folmar to the defendant H. C Carlisle, conditioned to make title to said Carlisle to certain lands therein described, upon the payment of said five notes which had been introduced in evidence, they being for the purchase money of said lands. In said bond for title it was stated that all of the notes given for the purchase money of said land bore even date with said bond for title together with the mortgage involved in this suit, which, as recited in said bond, was "executed by H. C. Carlisle to W. B. Folmar on certain personal property to better secure the debt named in the above notes." The defendant objected to the introduction in evidence of said bond for title, upon the grounds (1) that it was irrelevant; (2) that said bond could not be looked to as an aid in the construction of said mortgage; and (3) that said bond could not be considered by the jury in order to supply any defect or omission in said mortgage. The court overruled this objection, allowed the bond to be introduced in evidence, and to this ruling the defendant duly excepted.

M. N Carlisle, for appellant.

R. L. Harmon, for appellee.

DOWDELL J.

This was an action in detinue brought by appellee against the appellant for the recovery of certain personal property described in the complaint. While the bill of exceptions recites that issue was joined on pleas 1, 2, and 7, no evidence was offered on the trial, except upon plea No. 1. This plea is the general issue under the statute (Code 1896, § 3295), and is the same in effect and equivalent to the plea of non detinet at common law. Berlin Mach. Works v. Alabama City Furniture Co., 112 Ala. 488, 20 So. 418. This plea puts in issue the right of the plaintiff to recover. Foster v. Chamberlain, 41 Ala. 167.

The plaintiff relied for recovery on his title under a mortgage executed by the appellant, defendant in the court below, to the plaintiff. The mortgage, in terms, conveys the property in question to secure a debt, evidenced by defendant's note in the sum of $750, and also for any advances that might be made to the defendant. After this recital in the mortgage and following the description of the property conveyed, and just preceding the habendum clause, the following recital is made, to wit: "This mortgage is given to better secure 5 notes this day given to W. B. Folmar by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Hodgkiss v. Consolidated
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • March 31, 1937
    ...business, executing contracts, or suing and being sued.” See, also, Pease v. Pease, 35 Conn. 131, 148, 95 Am.Dec. 225;Carlisle v. People's Bank, 122 Ala. 446, 26 So. 115. A deed is sufficient if the grantee can be identified by extrinsic evidence. York v. Stone, 178 Wash. 280, 34 P.(2d) 911......
  • Hodgkiss v. Northland Petroleum Consol.
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • March 31, 1937
    ... ... [67 P.2d 812] ...          S. J ... Rigney, of Cut Bank, for appellant ...          Lew L ... Callaway, of Helena, for respondents ... sued." See, also, Pease v. Pease, 35 Conn. 131, ... 148, 95 Am.Dec. 225; Carlisle v. People's Bank, ... 122 Ala. 446, 26 So. 115. A deed is sufficient if the grantee ... can be ... ...
  • Major Millworks, Inc. v. MAE Hardwoods, Inc.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • June 12, 2015
    ...may adopt any name or style different from his own by which he may transact business...." (citing 29 Cyc. 270, and Carlisle v. People's Bank, 122 Ala. 446, 26 So. 115 (1899) )). "A person may adopt what name he pleases, and if he deals with others, or goes to court in a name, no matter what......
  • Padgett v. Gulfport Fertilizer Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • November 19, 1914
    ... ... Campbell, 12 Ala. 58; Pearce v. Clements, [11 ... Ala.App. 373] 73 Ala. 256; Decatur Branch Bank v ... Mosely, 19 Ala. 222; Stodder v. Grant, 28 Ala ... 416; Bradley v. Andress, 30 Ala. 80; ... could not recover. Code, § 5331; Carlisle v. People's ... Bank, 122 Ala. 446, 26 So. 115; Snellgrove v ... Evans, 145 Ala. 600, 40 So ... ...
  • 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