Gardner v. Head
| Decision Date | 14 November 1895 |
| Citation | 18 So. 551,108 Ala. 619 |
| Parties | GARDNER v. HEAD. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Pike county; John R. Tyson, Judge.
Action of trover by John D. Gardner against T. L. Head. Judgment was rendered for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
The plaintiff claimed the property alleged to have been converted by the defendant under a contract made between him and one Livingston, the substance of which is stated in the opinion and it was shown that at the end of the year, after deducting the portion of the crop raised by Livingston individually and Livingston's share of his employé's crops, there was still a balance due plaintiff from Livingston for advances made to the latter in order to make a crop. The defendant claimed the right to the property taken by him, by virtue of a mortgage executed to him by the employés of Livingston, which mortgage was made to secure the payment by said employés of advances made to them by the defendant; and it was shown that the property taken by the defendant was that portion of the crop raised by the said laborers employed by Livingston which was their share; and that this was not enough to pay their debt to the defendant. The other facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. Upon the hearing of all the evidence, the court, at the request of the defendant, gave the general affirmative charge in his behalf. To the giving of this charge, the plaintiff duly excepted. There were verdict and judgment for the defendant. Plaintiff appeals, and assigns as error the giving of the general affirmative charge, at the request of the defendant, and the judgment rendered.
Parks & Harmon and J. D. Gardner, for appellant.
Hubbard Wilkerson & Hubbard, for appellee.
The plaintiff, Gardner, and one Livingston entered into a contract to make a crop of cotton and corn, by which Gardner was to furnish the land and five mules to make the crop, and to feed the mules, and Livingston agreed to furnish the labor; the crops to be divided equally between them. The contract is within the provision of section 3065 of the Code of 1886, and the parties became tenants in common of the crop. This question was directly adjudicated in Adams v State, 87 Ala. 89, 6 So. 270, if an adjudication was necessary to establish so clear a proposition. 2 Brick. Dig. p. 129. Section 3075 of the Code reads as follows: "Persons farming on shares, or raising crops by joint contributions, in such manner as to make them tenants in common in such crops, or their assignees, shall each have a lien upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. Young
... ... unfair dealing of the other. This ruling was followed in ... Adams v. State, 87 Ala. 89, 6 So. 270; Gardner ... v. Head, 108 Ala. 619, 18 So. 551; and Ragsdale v ... Kinney, 119 Ala. 454, 24 So. 443 ... In ... Jordan v. Lindsay, 132 Ala. 567, ... ...
- Shelby v. State
-
Lauderdale v. Flippo & Son
...the rights of both parties, and to furnish each an efficient remedy against the frauds or unfair dealings of the other. In Gardner v. Head, 108 Ala. 619, 18 So. 551, it said that by no contract by one of the parties with which the other was not connected could the statutory security be misp......
-
Jordan v. Lindsay
... ... assuming that he was the assignee of Hammond, could not ... maintain it. Gill v. State, 124 Ala. 73, 27 So. 253 ... The cases of Gardner v. Head, 108 Ala. 619, 18 So ... 551, and Ragsdale v. Kinney, 119 Ala. 454, 24 So ... 443, in so far as they bear upon this subject, are unsound, ... ...