Folsom v. Carnley

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Citation97 So. 95,210 Ala. 131
Docket Number4 Div. 37.
Decision Date26 April 1923

97 So. 95

210 Ala. 131


4 Div. 37.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 26, 1923

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Coffee County; Arthur B. Foster, Judge.

Detinue by J. A. Carnley against Fred Folsom. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

W. W. Sanders, of Elba, for appellant.

M. A. Owen and J. A. Carnley, both of Elba, M. S. Carmichael, of Montgomery, and W. O. Mulkey, of Geneva, for appellee.


Plaintiff sued in statutory detinue for the automobile seized in the collection of taxes and sold by the tax collector, and for damages for its detention.

There was no error in denying the motion for a new trial on the ground and facts as [97 So. 96] to waiver stated. Hurt v. Southern Ry. Co., 205 Ala. 179, 182, 87 So. 533.

The suit was filed July 11, 1921, shortly after the automobile had been taken into possession of defendant; on July 14 replevin bond was given and the possession restored to defendant; and on July 22 the alleged tax sale was made by the tax collector. Prior to the taking of the car by said official-the defendant-for plaintiff's taxes due for 1920, all of the tax records of the county had been destroyed. The seizing of the car by Mr. Folsom was prior to any effort to re-establish or substitute said destroyed tax records, including that of plaintiff. Thereafter (October 29, 1921) the Legislature provided for the substitution of lost records, including assessment records. Under the operation of such statute the tax records and assessment of the property of plaintiff Carnley were established, and so certified of dates of December 27 and 29, 1921. General and Local Laws 1921, p. 22; Wise v. State, 208 Ala. 58, 93 So. 886.

As to the foregoing status, there is no conflict in the evidence; the only conflict being as to the value of the car. To the court's general charge no exception is reserved, and on submission the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, establishing the value of the property as required by statute in such matters. Gwin v. Emerald Co., Inc., 201 Ala. 384, 78 So. 758.

Counsel agreed that the destruction of tax records, or their loss, did not destroy any existing lien of the state and county for taxes which remained unpaid. Such were the recent announcements of this court. Bailey v. Folsom, Tax Col., 207 Ala. 329, 93 So. 479; Clark v. Eagerton, 207 Ala. 491, 93 So. 455; Wise v. State, 208 Ala. 58, 93 So. 886.

The declared legislative effect and extent of a substituted tax record authorized by the statute is that "such substituted record shall be of equal validity with the original." General and Local Laws 1921, p. 22. This was a remedial statute, and was retroactive. Barrington v. Barrington, 200 Ala. 315, 76 So. 81. In Wise v. State, supra, this court declared:

"The establishment of the existence of the valid assessment and the discovery of its extent and nature by resort to a court of equity for such purpose have the practical effect of furnishing the conclusive evidence of former existence of such jurisdictional fact and to dispense with the necessity of thereafter resorting to secondary evidence in its proof, as by purchaser at such tax sale May v. Parham, 68 Ala. 253; Peddy v Street, 87 Ala. 299, 6 So. 3; Ward v. State, 78 Ala. 455; Whitney v. Jasper Land Co., 119 Ala. 497, 500, 24 So. 259."

The general authority of the tax collector may be thus stated. It is provided:

"After the book of assessments has been completed as herein provided, the county tax adjuster or the board of county tax adjusters shall certify on the book of assessments that the same has been examined and corrected by him by comparing the book of assessments with the tax returns, both as to items of property and amounts of assessments, and approved by him, and that the amount of state tax is $ (here give amount), the

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Howard v. State, 8 Div. 464.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 26, 1933
    ...v. State et al., 210 Ala. 30, 97 So. 97; Lehmann v. State Board of Public Accountancy et al., 208 Ala. 185, 94 So. 94; Folsom v. Carnley, 210 Ala. 131, 97 So. 95; Barrington's Case, 200 Ala. 315, 76 So. 81; Globe Indemnity Co. v. Martin, 214 Ala. 646, 108 So. 761), and, as such, had it a re......
  • Miller-Brent Lumber Co. v. State, 4 Div. 27.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 9, 1923 the loss or theft of the records in question, and may be substituted under a retrospective statute. Folsom v. Carnley (Ala. Sup.) 97 So. 95. The authority to establish the records, as was done in this case, is to be found in the Act of the Special Session, 1921, page 22 et seq.: "To prov......
  • Allen v. Birmingham Southern R. Co., 6 Div. 755.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 3, 1923
    ...v. McLaney, 153 Ala. 586, headnote 9, 44 So. 1023, 127 Am. St. Rep. 71. In this court, in Southern Ry. Co. v. Fricks, 196 Ala. 64, [97 So. 95.] "Other charges were properly refused to the defendant because they were calculated to mislead the jury as to whether or not contributory negligence......
  • Lacy v. Alabama Power Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 30, 2000
    ...This proposition is so well established that we cite no authorities to sustain it." (Emphasis added.) See, also, Folsom v. Carnley, 210 Ala. 131, 97 So. 95 (1923); Charles W. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 229.02(3) (5th ed. 1996) ("Should all such documents [i.e., `final record, min......
  • 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