Chattanooga Metal Co. v. Proctor

• Decision Date: 20 April 1933
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 467.
• Parties: CHATTANOOGA METAL CO. et al. v. PROCTOR.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

147 So. 666

226 Ala. 492

CHATTANOOGA METAL CO. et al. v. PROCTOR.

8 Div. 467.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 20, 1933

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; A. E. Hawkins, Judge.

Bill in equity by John F. Proctor against the Chattanooga Metal Company and others. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill, respondents appeal.

Affirmed.

Ernest Parks, of Scottsboro, for appellants.

Proctor & Snodgrass, of Scottsboro, for appellee.

FOSTER Justice.

The chief question which counsel argue in this case is whether a creditor whose claim has been reduced to judgment in another state, but not in Alabama, is such a judgment creditor as may redeem lands of the debtor situated in Alabama, which were sold for taxes, as such right of redemption is conferred by section 3109, Code. We think the answer is clear that he is not such judgment creditor, and not entitled to the benefit of that statute, since it is only as such that he seeks a redemption. That was the ruling of the circuit court, in equity, as we understand the effect of the decree.

Section 3109, Code, confers the right, besides others not necessary here to mention, on "any person having an interest therein [the land sold], or in any part thereof, legal or equitable, * * * including a judgment creditor, or other creditor having a lien thereon, or on any part thereof."

A creditor without a lien, but whose claim is reduced to a judgment in a foreign state, but not in Alabama, cannot redeem in Alabama, from a tax sale under the statute, for the reason that he is not a judgment creditor as there declared. This court long ago held that a foreign judgment creditor asking the aid of a court of equity in Alabama, occupies the position of a general creditor only, and not of a judgment creditor. Saffold v. Wade's Ex'r, 51 Ala 214; Freeman v. Jordan, 17 Ala. 500. In more recent cases we have referred to the same principle. Continental Auto Ins. Underwriters v. Menuskin, 222 Ala. 370, 132 So. 883; Calkins v. Calkins, 217 Ala. 378, 115 So 866.

This is elsewhere said to be the general rule. 27 Corpus Juris, 738; 34 Corpus Juris, 1104, 1137. In all of them it is pointed out that such principle does not conflict with the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution. Art. 4, § 1.

It has also been an established rule for the construction of Alabama statutes conferring rights which involve property interests upon judgment creditors that such rights exist only when the judgment creditor has thereby acquired a right to make a valid sale of the property through execution....