Duncan v. Autauga Banking & Trust Co., 3 Div. 953.
Decision Date | 18 June 1931 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 953. |
Citation | 136 So. 733,223 Ala. 434 |
Parties | DUNCAN ET AL. v. AUTAUGA BANKING & TRUST CO. ET AL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 15, 1931.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Autauga County; George F. Smoot, Judge.
Bill in equity by J. G. Duncan and J. G. Duncan, Jr., against the Autauga Banking & Trust Company and Dent F. Green, as Superintendent of Banks, liquidating said bank, to enforce the lien of recorded judgments against property conveyed by the judgment creditors to Autauga Banking & Trust Company. From a decree sustaining a demurrer to the bill, complainants appeal.
Affirmed.
Rushton Crenshaw & Rushton, of Montgomery, for appellants.
Gipson & Booth, of Prattville, for appellees.
Whatever may be the rule elsewhere, it is the settled law of this state that, to create a lien by filing for registration a certificate of judgment under the provisions of sections 7874 and 7875, Code of 1923, there must be strict observance of the requirements of the statute as to the contents of such certificate. Duncan v. Ashcraft, Admr., etc., 121 Ala. 552, 25 So. 735; Roney v. Dothan Produce Co., 217 Ala. 475, 117 So. 36; Conn v. Sellers, 198 Ala 606, 73 So. 961; Ladd v. Smith, 209 Ala. 114, 95 So 280; Morris v. Waldrop, 213 Ala. 435, 105 So. 172; Reuf et al. v. Fulks et al., 219 Ala. 252, 122 So 14.
The reason for applying the rule of strict construction was stated in Duncan v. Ashcraft, Adm'r, etc., 121 Ala. 555, 25 So. 735, 737, supra:
The rule of liberal construction adverted to in Enslen, Adm'x, v. Wheeler, Adm'r, 98 Ala. 200, 13 So. 473, cited by appellants, was in respect to the applicability of the statute to judgments rendered prior to its enactment, as well as those subsequently rendered, as pointed out in Duncan v. Ashcraft, Admr., supra.
Prior to the amendment of the statute by the act of February 23, 1899, the statute required the certificate to state the name of the owner of the judgment. Travis v. Rhodes, 142 Ala. 189, 37 So. 804; Edinburgh Amer. Land Mtg. Co., Ltd. v. Grant, 152 Ala. 456, 44 So. 554.
The statute provides that the certificate " shall show the style of the court which rendered the decree or judgment, the amount and date thereof, the amount of costs, the names of all parties thereto, and the name of the plaintiff's or complainant's attorney." (Italics supplied.) Code 1923, § 7874.
The statute in this respect is mandatory, and the Legislature must have thought that these specific requirements were...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miles v. Gay
...failure to show the names of all the parties to the judgment. Ladd v. Smith, 209 Ala. 114, 95 So. 280.' In Duncan v. Autauga Banking & Trust Company, 223 Ala. 434, 435, 136 So. 733, this court said: 'Whatever may be the rule elsewhere, it is the settled law of this state that, to create a l......
-
Ball v. Vogtner
...the statutory requirements as to the contents of the certificate must be strictly observed. See, e. g., Duncan v. Autauga Banking & Trust Co., 223 Ala. 434, 136 So. 733 (1931). Appellant properly filed a certificate; however, she listed the judgment debtor as Mary Morgan instead of Mary Col......
-
In re Norman
...form over substance in this instance. The several cases cited by trustee, principal of which is Duncan et al v. Autauga Banking and Trust Co., et al., 223 Ala. 434, 136 So. 733 (1931), do just that. There Justice Brown held that ". . . to create a lien by filing for registration a Certifica......
-
Scott v. Hales
...derogation of the common law and [are] to be strictly construed." Ball v. Vogtner, 362 So.2d 894 (Ala.1978); Duncan v. Autauga Banking & Trust Co., 223 Ala. 434, 136 So. 733 (1931). However, this Court has often noted that the statutory requirements must be viewed in relation to the purpose......