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

Decision Date11 June 1895
Citation107 Ala. 531,18 So. 108
CourtAlabama Supreme Court
PartiesFLORENCE BLDG. & INV. ASS'N v. SCHALL ET AL.

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.

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Smith v. Bachus
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 11 d4 Novembro d4 1915
    ......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 ......
  • Perolio v. Doe ex dem. Woodward Iron Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 16 d4 Novembro d4 1916
    ...... Marx, 96 Ala. 501, 11 So. 633; F.B. & I. Co. v. Schall, 107 Ala. 531, 18 So. 108. . . So far. as this ......
  • Holman v. Childersburg Bancorporation, Inc.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 6 d5 Dezembro d5 2002
    ...value 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......
  • Crutchfield v. Vogel, 6 Div. 18
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 7 d4 Janeiro d4 1937
    ......480, 78 So. 386;. Florence Building & Investment Ass'n v. Schall et. al., 107 Ala. ......
  • 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