Foster v. Goodwin
| Decision Date | 01 July 1887 |
| Citation | 82 Ala. 384,2 So. 895 |
| Parties | FOSTER v. GOODWIN. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Henry county; JOHN P. HUBBARD, Judge.
Gamble & Richardson, for appellant.
Stallings & Wilkinson, contra.
The suit arose on a claim interposed by appellant, under the statute, to a bale of cotton, levied on by attachment, sued out by appellee, for rent claimed to be due by Barnes as his tenant. The tenancy arose from a contract of purchase of lands, by which the vendee, who is the defendant in attachment, agreed to pay the plaintiff 16 bales of cotton for rent, and to surrender the lands, in the event he failed to pay the purchase-money note at maturity, which matured October 1, 1884. By the agreement the relation of landlord and tenant was created, with all rights and incidents referable to the time of making the contract. Collins v. Whigham, 58 Ala. 438. But the claimant contended that, in pursuance of an agreement and arrangement between plaintiff and Barnes, made in 1884 the latter fully discharged the purchase money of the lands, and that the relation of landlord and tenant was not created. The claimant derived title to the cotton by purchase from a subtenant of Barnes. There appears to have been no dispute as to the fact that the cotton was grown on the premises, nor as to the purchase by claimant. The controverted question is payment vel non of the purchase money.
We find difficulty in understanding precisely and fully the charges given by the court; but, as we interpret them, the record does not affirmatively show the court in error. Particular phrases used in the general charge are selected and excepted to; but when considered in the connection in which they were used, they are not erroneously employed. The issue joined is an affirmation by the plaintiff that the cotton in question is subject to his attachment, and a denial of the fact by the claimant. It is incumbent on the plaintiff to make out a prima facie case of liability, which, when done, casts on the claimant the burden of establishing the validity of his title as against the plaintiff The landlord's lien for rent extends to all the crops grown on the rented premises, and they are liable to an attachment, though not raised by the tenant himself. For the purpose of enforcing the lien, they are in legal contemplation his property.
The attachment was sued out in March, 1885. The subsequent transfer of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Mason
... ... interpleader from denying the levy; and in Schloss v ... Inman, 129 Ala. 424, 30 So. 667, and Foster v ... Goodwin, 82 Ala. 384, 2 So. 895, that "The ... existence of plaintiff's debt, as well as the fact that ... the attachment was levied, the ... ...
-
Monroe County Growers' Exch. v. Harper
...property in the chattel as is the subject of levy and sale under the process? Allison v. Pattison, 96 Ala. 159, 11 So. 194; Foster v. Goodwin, 82 Ala. 384, 2 So. 895. evidence in this case is without conflict that the notes sued on were for rent of the land on which the potatoes levied on w......
-
Wollner v. Lehman
... ... 3 Brick. Dig. 776, § 7; ... Loeb v. Manasses, 78 Ala. 555; ... Jones v. Franklin, 81 Ala. 161, 1 ... South. Rep. 199; Foster v ... Goodwin, 82 Ala. 384, 2 South. Rep. 895. And the ... claimant, in defense of such action, cannot set up ... outstanding title in a ... ...
-
Johnson v. Mason
...of the attachment bond estops the interpleader from denying the levy; and in Schloss v. Inman, 129 Ala. 424, 30 South. 667, and Foster v. Goodwin, 82 Ala. 384, 2 South. 895, that: "The existence of plaintiff's debt as well as the fact that the attachment was levied, the claimant, by assumin......