Foxworth v. Brown

• Citation: 114 Ala. 299,21 So. 413
• Parties: FOXWORTH v. BROWN ET AL.
• Decision Date: 04 February 1897
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

21 So. 413

114 Ala. 299

FOXWORTH v. BROWN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 4, 1897

Appeal from circuit court, Mobile county; William S. Anderson Judge.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the appellant, Francis G. Foxworth, against the appellees, Brown Bros., and sought to recover the sum of $550, due plaintiff January 1, 1893 for money had and received by the defendants for the use of the plaintiff. The money sought to be recovered from the defendants was an amount due from one Shamberger upon a note which he had given to the plaintiff for the rent of a plantation owned by the plaintiff and known as the "McNeil Place." The facts of the case are sufficiently shown in the opinion. Upon the introduction of all the evidence, the court gave at the request of the defendants, the general affirmative charge in their behalf and refused to give at the request of the plaintiff the following written charges: (1) "The court charges the jury that a person is chargeable with knowledge of the landlord's lien, who knows that the property purchased is the product of rented lands." (2) "If the jury believe from the evidence that J. P. Shamberger rented the land called the 'McNeil Place' from the plaintiff in the year 1892 and raised cotton thereon and removed the same therefrom without paying the rent thereof for the said year and without the consent of the plaintiff, and shipped the same to defendants, and they sold the same and failed and refused to pay said rent to the plaintiff, and the defendants, before they sold said cotton, had knowledge of any fact sufficient to put them on inquiry, which if prosecuted with reasonable diligence would have disclosed to them the fact that said cotton was raised on the land rented by said Shamberger from the plaintiff in said year, they must find for the plaintiff and it is immaterial from what source, or by what method, or at what time the information was obtained." (3) "The court charges the jury that Shamberger, having told defendants in 1891, that he was renting land to make crop on that year, and the defendants having paid the plaintiff $750 by draft drawn on them by Shamberger, and the draft specifying that it was for rent of the McNeil place, if the jury find these facts to be true, then they can look at these facts and decide whether they are sufficient to put defendants on inquiry as to what rent and to whom it was due for the year 1892, and if they find that these facts were sufficient to put defendants upon inquiry, which if followed up, would have disclosed to whom and what rent was due by him, Shamberger, for 1892, then they, the jury, should find for the plaintiff." The plaintiff separately excepted to the court's giving the general affirmative charge requested by the defendants; and also separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of the charges requested by him. There were verdict and judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff appeals, and assigns as error the rulings of the trial court to which exceptions were reserved. Reversed.

J. N. Miller and Clarke & Webb, for appellant.

Gregory, L. & H. T. Smith, for appellees.

HARALSON J.

It is properly admitted by appellees, that when one purchases cotton grown upon rented land, with notice of the landlord's lien thereon, and sells it and receives the money therefrom, and appropriates it to his own use, assumpsit will lie by the landlord for the money had and received. Booker v. Jones' Adm'x, 55 Ala. 275; Barnett v. Warren, 82 Ala. 558, 2 So. 457; 1 Brick. Dig. p. 140, §§ 72, 73. Actual knowledge is not necessary to charge a purchaser of cotton from the tenant with notice of the lien of the landlord on the same. Whatever is sufficient to put him on inquiry, is also sufficient to charge him with notice. Lomax v. Le Grand, 60 Ala. 537; Townsend v. Brooks, 76 Ala. 311; Warren v. Barnett, 83 Ala. 208, 3 So. 609. If the purchaser have knowledge of facts sufficient to excite such inquiry, or a knowledge of facts, which would naturally and reasonably be calculated to arouse suspicion of the main fact, notice of which is sought to be charged to him, the duty of inquiry exists and he must exercise it. Kyle v. Ward, 81 Ala. 120, 1 So. 468, and authorities, supra.

The facts of the case, applicable to the foregoing principles are, that the cotton for the proceeds of which defendants are sued was raised on the plaintiff's plantation in Wilcox county, known as the "McNeil Place." The evidence of plaintiff further shows that J. P. Shamberger rented said plantation from the plaintiff for the year 1892, for $550, for which he gave him his note, dated February 25, 1892, payable on the 15th December following and that said note has never been paid. It was also in evidence that Shamberger raised on the said farm, in 1892, about 40 bales of cotton, worth about $30 per bale, and that he shipped the cotton, as it was gathered each week, to defendants, without the consent of the plaintiff, and defendants sold the cotton just as they received it. The witness, Shamberger, for plaintiff testified, that in 1891 and 1892, he...