Cleveland Storage Co. v. Guardian Trust Co., 4 Div. 517.
| Decision Date | 18 December 1930 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 517. |
| Citation | 131 So. 634,222 Ala. 210 |
| Parties | CLEVELAND STORAGE CO. v. GUARDIAN TRUST CO. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Henry County; H. A. Pearce, Judge.
Bill for discovery, accounting, and other relief by the Guardian Trust Company against the Cleveland Storage Company. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill, respondent appeals.
Reversed rendered, and remanded.
Rushton Crenshaw & Rushton, of Montgomery, and D. C. Halstead, of Headland, for appellant.
Steiner Crum & Weil, of Montgomery, and Farmer, Merrill & Farmer, of Dothan, for appellee.
Appellant company was engaged in conducting a warehouse for the storage of lumber. It issued receipts or warrants for the lumber stored with it. Such lumber was manufactured by Gulf Region Lumber Company, to which the receipts were issued payable to its order, and by it transferred to appellee as security for loans made. By this method appellee came into possession of receipts for a large quantity of lumber stored in the warehouse of appellant. After a fire which burned some of it, for which appellee received the insurance, it is alleged that it still holds receipts for 12,970,000 feet, but there were in storage only about 5,500,000 feet, at the time of filing the bill, and that demand had been made for the delivery of the amount shown by the receipts. The receipts or warrants are alleged to contain an indorsement as a part of them, as follows:
It also reserved the right to deliver any grade of lumber on hand.
It is further alleged that complainant is not advised or informed of the grade of such lumber, nor whether any substitution was made pursuant to the authority of the receipts so issued.
The purpose of the bill is to obtain a discovery of all the facts relating to the issuance of the receipts and disposition of the lumber and what substitutions were made, the grade and quality of same, and for an accounting for the value of that not on hand and for a delivery to it of that now in possession of respondent. From a decree overruling demurrer to the bill in its essential features, respondent appeals.
Though the bill does not allege that the receipts were negotiated to appellee by indorsement, it does show a transfer, presumably by delivery, as collateral security. While they could not be "negotiated" in that manner, they could be "transferred" without indorsement, so that the purchaser would acquire title to the property. Code 1923, §§ 10548, 10551; Agricultural Code 1927, §§ 451, 454. But the indorsement upon the receipts we have quoted as a part of them distinctly states that they do not cover any identical lot of lumber, and that, when demand is made for delivery, the warehouseman may select from the stock in its custody the sizes of the lumber to be delivered, and may deliver any of it then on hand. The bill does not allege that all the receipts thus issued were pledged to appellee, nor that all the lumber stored in the warehouse was subject to the receipts which it held. Therefore it does not expressly show that appellee acquired the right and title to any certain lot of lumber. If other receipts were issued, and otherwise disposed of, the claim of appellee would relate to a definite number of feet of indefinite grades and sizes to be selected out of the whole, but would not embrace a specific lot. If this were the situation, appellee would not have the legal title to any certain lot of lumber, and could probably enforce its claim on the whole amount in equity. Section 8935, Code.
But no presumption can be indulged in favor of complainant. We must presume, therefore, that all the receipts for all the lumber that was stored were transferred to appellee, and, regardless of the grade or right reserved to select out of the whole lot that which shall be delivered upon demand for only a part of it, such whole became the property of appellee under the provisions of the statute referred to. So that upon the allegation that there was on deposit at the time of filing the bill 5,550,000 feet of the lumber, those allegations, taken with the legal presumptions, show a legal title to this, regardless of the grade or size. Still taking the presumptions against appellee, the bill shows that 7,420,000 feet are not now in storage and ought to be under the receipts, and that if it were so in storage, all of it would legally belong to appellee, so that appellee could maintain an action at law for its conversion, if it had been thus stored with appellant. But the bill in effect alleges that in large part the warehouseman did not receive the lumber (that is, that the receipts were fictitious), or that it was misappropriated and converted in a manner unknown to appellee. None of this shows a claim of equitable right, but for his damage, either in issuing a fictitious claim (Code 1923, § 10526; Agricultural Code 1927, § 429), or in converting the lumber to other uses, an action at law is available. Code 1923, § 10514; Agricultural Code 1927, § 417.
The equity of the bill cannot be supported as one to foreclose a pledge as contended. It seeks no such relief, and is not properly framed for that result.
As a bill for an accounting it falls far short of sufficient allegations to invoke the aid of equity, except as an incident to some other equitable relief. When an accounting is the relief which, complainant claims, gives the bill standing in equity, there must be some averment of fact to show that complete relief cannot be had in a court of law, or some fact which makes relief one of equitable jurisdiction. Outside of the discovery sought, we find nothing in the bill which gives equity jurisdiction as one for an accounting. Julian v. Woolbert, 202 Ala. 530, 81 So. 32.
It is therefore no more than an effort to obtain a discovery in aid of a purely legal demand or claim. In order to give equity to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dewberry v. Bank of Standing Rock
... ... v. BANK OF STANDING ROCK et al. 5 Div. 122. Supreme Court of Alabama May 11, 1933 ... 123, 55 So. 789; Goodall-Brown & ... Co. et al. v. Ray, 168 Ala. 350, 53 So. 137. The ... 528, 103 So. 470; Cleveland Storage Co. v. Guardian Trust ... Co., 222 Ala ... Sanders, 84 Ala. 356, 357, 4 So. 167, 168, that: ... "The payment of the debt ... Co., 132 Ala. 95, 31 So. 517, 90 Am. St. Rep. 896; ... Foster v. Goree, 5 ... ...
-
Ingram v. People's Finance & Thrift Co. of Alabama, 6 Div. 197.
... ... Ala. 296, 305, 306, 118 So. 513; Cleveland Storage Co. v ... Guardian Trust Co., 222 Ala ... Hayles, 176 Ala ... 223, 57 So. 696; 4 Pom. Eq. Jur. (2d Ed.) § 1421; 1 C.J. p ... ...
-
Johnston v. Johnston
...Industrial Co., 161 Ala. 509, 50 So. 77. The same is true as to a discovery in aid of a legal demand. Cleveland Storage Co. v. Guardian Trust Co., 222 Ala. 210, 131 So. 634; Tuskegee Homes Co. v. Oswalt, 248 Ala. 64, 26 So.2d 865; Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Finley, 250 Ala. 350, 34 So.2d 46......
-
McKinstry v. Thomas
...seeks a discovery in such way as to require it to be verified is subject to demurrer for a failure to do so, Cleveland Storage Co. v. Guardian Trust Co., 222 Ala. 210, 131 So. 634, but it has been uniformly held by this Court not to be subject to demurrer for a failure to verify it to the e......