Carman v. Alabama Nat. Bank

• Decision Date: 15 June 1893
• Citation: 13 So. 581,101 Ala. 189
• Parties: CARMAN ET AL. v. ALABAMA NAT. BANK OF MOBILE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

13 So. 581

101 Ala. 189

CARMAN ET AL. v. ALABAMA NAT. BANK OF MOBILE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 15, 1893

Appeal from chancery court, Mobile county; W. H. Tayloe, Chancellor.

Bill by the Alabama National Bank of Mobile against Carman & Begg and others for an injunction and other relief. Complainant had decree, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

On October 31, 1891, the complainant rented to Carman & Begg, a copartnership, a certain store, to be used as a printing office. At the time of the execution of the lease, Carman &amp Begg gave their 12 promissory notes, payable the 1st of each month. Shortly after the execution of the said lease and notes, Carman & Begg formed a corporation known as the Commercial Printing Company, to which they transferred all their property. On March 4th and 5th, respectively, one Colburn and the St. Louis Paper Company, who were creditors of the Commercial Printing Company, sued out writs of attachment, which were levied upon the presses and other property of the Commercial Printing Company; on the leased premises. Carman & Begg paid the first installment due December 1, 1891, but made default in the subsequent installments; and on March 15, 1892, the complainant sued out, in the city court of Mobile, an attachment for rent then due, with interest, and on April 16, 1892, the complainant sued out another writ of attachment, for the installment of rent due April 1, 1892, against Carman & Begg; and these attachments were levied upon the same property which was attached at the suit of Colburn and the St. Louis Paper Company. Before another installment of rent fell due, the city court made an order in the case of Colburn against the Commercial Printing Company for the sale of the property upon which the attachments were levied, on the ground that it was perishable; and the bill alleges that the "complainant does not know what has become of the property so sold, and could not identify or trace more than a small portion of the same." On the ex parte motion of the St. Louis Paper Company, the city court granted an order for the distribution of the funds in the hands of the sheriff, which were the proceeds of his sale. Thereupon the complainant filed this bill to enjoin the distribution of the fund so obtained alleging "that, if said fund is so distributed without first satisfying the lien thereupon, the complainant will be remediless," and also praying that a lien be declared in favor of complainant on the proceeds in the hands of the sheriff. The court overruled the several demurrers...