Covey Cotton Oil Co. v. Bank of Ft. Gaines

• Citation: 15 Ala.App. 529,74 So. 87
• Decision Date: 30 January 1917
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 406
• Parties: COVEY COTTON OIL CO. v. BANK OF FT. GAINES.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

74 So. 87

15 Ala.App. 529

COVEY COTTON OIL CO. v. BANK OF FT. GAINES.

4 Div. 406

Court of Appeals of Alabama

January 30, 1917

Rehearing Denied Feb. 6, 1917

Appeal from Circuit Court, Barbour County; M. Sollie, Judge.

Action by the Bank of Fort Gaines against the Covey Cotton Oil Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

McDowell & McDowell, of Eufaula, and George W. Peach, of Clayton, for appellant.

A.H Merrill & Sons, of Eufaula, for appellee.

BROWN J.

The judgment from which this appeal was prosecuted was rendered on the 3d day of December, 1914, and while the trial judge failed to indorse on the bill of exceptions the date it was presented to him for his signature, the bill shows on its face that it was signed on the 27th day of February, or within 90 days from the day of the rendition of the judgment.

While the statement in the bill, "The said bill of exceptions having been tendered within the time prescribed by law," will not be regarded, the date of the signing being within 90 days is conclusive evidence that it was presented in time and the motion of appellee to strike the bill from the record is overruled. Brannan v. Sherry (Sup.) 71 So. 106.

The plaintiff, a foreign banking corporation doing business at Fort Gaines, Ga., sues for the conversion of property claiming title to the property alleged to have been converted by the defendant through a mortgage executed by J.A. Hobbs and duly filed for record and recorded in the office of the probate judge of Barbour county at Eufaula, Ala. The property alleged to have been converted is cotton seed produced by said Hobbs on his plantation in Barbour county, and the undisputed evidence shows that the defendant purchased the seed from Hobbs in Eufaula at its place of business.

The contention of appellant is that the mortgage shows on its face that it was executed in Alabama, and, the mortgage being executed to plaintiff, a foreign corporation that had not qualified under our Constitution and statutes to do business in this state, that the fact of the execution of the mortgage by Hobbs to the plaintiff in this state was doing business in violation of the statutes, and the mortgage is void on its face, and its recordation did not operate as notice to the defendant. The further contention is made that, the mortgage being void on its face, the court erred in allowing the plaintiff to show that the entire transaction between the plaintiff and Hobbs, including the execution and delivery of the mortgage, took place in the state of Georgia.

We cannot sustain either of the appellant's contentions. The mere fact that Hobbs executed the mortgage in Alabama on property in Alabama to secure an indebtedness contracted in the state...