Florence Bldg. & Inv. Ass'n v. Schall

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtHEAD, J.
Citation107 Ala. 531,18 So. 108
PartiesFLORENCE BLDG. & INV. ASS'N v. SCHALL ET AL.
Decision Date11 June 1895

18 So. 108

107 Ala. 531

FLORENCE BLDG. & INV. ASS'N
v.
SCHALL ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 11, 1895


Appeal from district court, Lauderdale county; W. P. Chitwood, Judge.

Action of statutory ejectment by Charles Schall and others against the Florence Building & Investment Company. Judgment was rendered for plaintiffs, by direction of the court, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

C. E. Jordan and Simpson & Jones, for appellant.

Pickett & Crow, for appellees.

HEAD, J.

Statutory real action by appellees to recover two city lots. Plea, not guilty. The plaintiffs claim title under a sheriff's deed made on the 4th day of November, 1889, in pursuance of a sale, under execution issued on a judgment which they obtained on the 6th day of September, 1889, against W. [18 So. 109.]

O. Coleman. They introduced this judgment and sheriff's deed, and also conveyances of the two lots to Coleman by the Florence Land, Mining & Manufacturing Company, executed in November, 1888, and rested. At this point defendants moved to exclude the evidence on the ground that plaintiffs had not shown title, and excepted to the overruling of their motion. The exception was well taken. The plaintiffs had shown no title whatever in the Florence Land, Mining & Manufacturing Company, and no possession in that company or Coleman. In order to make out their case, they should have shown a regular chain of title back to some grantor in possession, or to the government. But after the overruling of its motion the defendant went further, and showed that it claimed title from Coleman also, and introduced a deed from him and his wife, to the lots, to itself, executed on the 14th day of November, 1888. This was an admission that Coleman had title, and it must be so assumed. It is observed that defendant's deed from Coleman is prior in time to the plaintiffs' judgment and sheriff's deed. The plaintiffs insist upon priority of right by the allegation that their judgment and execution sale were in the enforcement of a mechanic's and material man's lien on the lots, which antedated the deed of Coleman to the defendant. The complaint, in that action against Coleman, sets forth the facts essential to the creation of such a lien, and prays that such be declared and enforced. The judgment entry, after a manner,-whether legally sufficient, or not, in form and procedure, we need not now decide,-declares that a mechanic's lien "attaches on the land." The case was tried by a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 practice notes
  • Smith v. Bachus, 7 Div. 708
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • November 11, 1915
    ...v. King, 145 Ala. 591, 40 So. 315; Jackson Lumber Co. v. McCreary et al., 137 Ala. 278, 34 So. 850; Florence B. & I. Ass'n v. Schall, 107 Ala. 531, 18 So. 108. This is clearly shown by the evidence to have been met. There was no error in allowing the witness to state that Daniel C. Harris c......
  • Perolio v. Doe ex dem. Woodward Iron Co., 6 Div. 199
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • November 16, 1916
    ...Gilmore. Pollard v. Cocke, 19 Ala. 188; Gantt v. Cowan, 27 Ala. 582; Matkin v. Marx, 96 Ala. 501, 11 So. 633; F.B. & I. Co. v. Schall, 107 Ala. 531, 18 So. 108. So far as this record shows, Gilmore's purchase of the land was from Medlin, on the date indicated, notwithstanding the tendency o......
  • Holman v. Childersburg Bancorporation, Inc.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • December 6, 2002
    ...essential to constitute substantial evidence in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Florence Bldg. & Inv. Ass'n v. Schall, 107 Ala. 531, 534, 18 So. 108, 109 (1894) ("[T]hey deposed merely that it was correct and true `to the best of their knowledge and belief.' We held, in Globe......
  • Payton v. Madison, 1 Div. 294.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • November 18, 1948
    ...of showing title back to some grantor in possession or to the government. Florence Building & Investment Association v. Schall et al., 107 Ala. 531, 18 So. 108. It follows, of course, that where the defendant claims under a deed from the plaintiff he cannot question the plaintiff's title. E......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
25 cases
  • Smith v. Bachus, 7 Div. 708
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • November 11, 1915
    ...v. King, 145 Ala. 591, 40 So. 315; Jackson Lumber Co. v. McCreary et al., 137 Ala. 278, 34 So. 850; Florence B. & I. Ass'n v. Schall, 107 Ala. 531, 18 So. 108. This is clearly shown by the evidence to have been met. There was no error in allowing the witness to state that Daniel C. Harris c......
  • Perolio v. Doe ex dem. Woodward Iron Co., 6 Div. 199
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • November 16, 1916
    ...Gilmore. Pollard v. Cocke, 19 Ala. 188; Gantt v. Cowan, 27 Ala. 582; Matkin v. Marx, 96 Ala. 501, 11 So. 633; F.B. & I. Co. v. Schall, 107 Ala. 531, 18 So. 108. So far as this record shows, Gilmore's purchase of the land was from Medlin, on the date indicated, notwithstanding the tendency o......
  • Holman v. Childersburg Bancorporation, Inc.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • December 6, 2002
    ...essential to constitute substantial evidence in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Florence Bldg. & Inv. Ass'n v. Schall, 107 Ala. 531, 534, 18 So. 108, 109 (1894) ("[T]hey deposed merely that it was correct and true `to the best of their knowledge and belief.' We held, in Globe......
  • Payton v. Madison, 1 Div. 294.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • November 18, 1948
    ...of showing title back to some grantor in possession or to the government. Florence Building & Investment Association v. Schall et al., 107 Ala. 531, 18 So. 108. It follows, of course, that where the defendant claims under a deed from the plaintiff he cannot question the plaintiff's title. E......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT