Gaston v. Marengo Imp. Co.
| Decision Date | 09 February 1904 |
| Citation | 139 Ala. 465,36 So. 738 |
| Parties | GASTON v. MARENGO IMP. CO. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marengo County; Jno. C. Anderson, Judge.
Action by the Marengo Improvement Company against J. W. Gaston. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
This was a statutory trial of the right of property, which was instituted by the Marengo Improvement Company making affidavit and bond, interposing a claim to certain property which was levied upon under an execution issued upon a judgment recovered by J. W. Gaston against one Bob Fritts. There was a motion made to strike the affidavit of claim made by the claimant from the file. The bill of exceptions recites that this motion was overruled, but there is no entry in the judgment proper showing the ruling of the court upon said motion. The evidence showed the following facts: A certificate of the judgment recovered by Gaston against Fritts was recorded in the office of the judge of probate of Marengo county on May 28, 1901. On October 19, 1902, an execution was issued out of the circuit court upon said judgment, and the same was levied upon the property involved in the controversy on October 7, 1902, said property being in the possession of the defendant in execution, Fritts. The claimant introduced in evidence a mortgage executed by Robt. Fritts and his wife to it on January 23, 1902, in which mortgage said Fritts conveyed the crop to be grown by him during the current year. It was admitted that the property levied upon under execution was a part of the crop grown by the defendant, Fritts, during the year 1902, and was the property described in the mortgage. Upon the introduction of all the evidence, the court, at the request of the claimant gave to the jury the general affirmative charge in its behalf. To the giving of this charge the plaintiff duly excepted, and also excepted to the court's refusal to give the general affirmative charge requested by him. There were verdict and judgment for the claimant. This judgment was rendered on November 7, 1902. Thereafter the plaintiff made a motion for a new trial. This motion was overruled on November 20, 1902. The plaintiff took an appeal, the notice of appeal reciting that the appeal was taken from a judgment rendered on November 7, 1902. In the order of the court overruling the motion for a new trial, it is recited that the "plaintiff is given 30 days within which to prepare and file his bil...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Jones
... ... Act of this state, as is necessary to properly present the ... question. Gaston v. Marengo Imp. Co., 139 Ala. 465, ... 36 So. 738 ... It may ... be permissible to ... ...
-
Matter of Sandefer
...circumstances, and at the same point in time, that he can obtain a valid levy on the property. For example, in Gaston v. Marengo Imp. Co., 139 Ala. 465, 36 So. 738 (1904), the court held, by reason of a statute which prohibited the levy and sale of a growing crop, that a judgment lien could......
-
Pinckard v. Cassels
... ... [70 So. 155] ... Woods v. Rose & Co., 135 Ala. 297, 33 So. 41, and Gaston ... v. Marengo Improvement Co., 139 Ala. 465, 467, 36 So ... 738, respectively ... In ... ...
-
Irby v. Kaigler
... ... 666, 31 So. 1035; ... Street et al. v. Frank, 136 Ala. 616, 33 So. 879 ... See, also, Gaston v. Marengo Improvement Co., 139 ... Ala. 465, 36 So. 738, referred to and approved on this ... ...