Glass v. Tisdale
| Decision Date | 16 May 1895 |
| Parties | GLASS v. TISDALE. [1] |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from chancery court, Dallas county; W. H. Tayloe, Judge.
Bill by Mattie P. Glass against W. H. Tisdale. There was a decree for defendant on demurrer to the complaint, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
The appellant, Mattie P. Glass, filed this bill, asserting a rent claim against Eanes & Peterson for the rent of the property in the city of Selma known as the "St. James Hotel," and she seeks as landlord to fasten a landlord's lien on certain furniture and other personal property alleged to have been kept in said hotel, and which it is averred was removed therefrom by the appellee, Tisdale who is made the defendant to the bill. The facts as averred in the bill are substantially as follows: The complainant Glass, leased the hotel property to the defendant, W. H Tisdale, for a term of two years from December 31, 1889. On November 24, 1891, the complainant leased said building to Eanes & Peterson for a term of three years beginning at the expiration of the Tisdale lease, to wit, December 31, 1891. In November, 1891, Tisdale, being then in possession of the leased property, assigned his leasehold interest in the unexpired term to Eanes & Peterson, and Eanes & Peterson went into possession of the property, and at the same time Tisdale sold to them all of his hotel furniture, kitchen furniture and his stock of liquors and tobacco then in said building; and to secure the price thereof Eanes & Peterson executed a mortgage back upon the property to the said Tisdale. That the property was delivered to them, Eanes & Peterson, who occupied and operated the hotel until June, 1892, when they subject the property to said Tisdale until January 1, 1893, and delivered to him the property, and at the same time Tisdale repurchased the personal property, which he sold to Eanes & Peterson, and which was conveyed in their mortgage to him. It was averred in the bill that the property which was conveyed in the mortgage and repurchased by Tisdale was, in some way unknown to the complainant, removed from the hotel building. The prayer of the bill was for a discovery as to the location and description of the property which was formerly in the hotel, and that the complainant be declared to have a landlord's lien on said property, and that it be sold in satisfaction of her claim for rent. The defendant demurred to the bill, among others, upon the ground that it is shown by the bill that the defendant, Tisdale, had a right to the property superior to the asserted claim of complainant. The court sustained the defendant's demurrer, and from this decree the present appeal is prosecuted, and the same is here assigned as error.
Thorington & Chilton, for appellant.
H. S.D. Mallory, for appellee.
Section 3069 of the Code is as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Manchuria S.S. Co. v. Harry G.G. Donald & Co.
...property, given before a lien of the landlord has attached, was upheld in Bingham v. Vandegrift, 93 Ala. 283, 9 So. 280; Glass v. Tisdale, 106 Ala. 581, 19 So. 70. Mortgages by insolvent debtors for advances, provender, fertilizers to be used in the making of a crop, have been sustained and......
-
Mitchell v. Conway
...McClesky, supra. But that case has not been followed in that respect. Card Lumber Co. v. Ozement, 187 Ala. 237, 65 So. 792; Glass v. Tisdale, 106 Ala. 581, 19 So. 70; Southern Alabama Oil & Fertilizer Co. v. Garner, 112 Ala. 447, 20 So. 628; Stanley v. Johnson, 113 Ala. 344, 21 So. 823; Bui......
-
City of Birmingham v. Emond
... ... Peterson, 226 Ala. 13, 145 ... So. 154; Manchuria S. S. Co. v. Harry G. G. Donald & ... Co., 200 Ala. 638, 77 So. 12; Glass v. Tisdale, ... 106 Ala. 581, 19 So. 70; Page & Jones on Taxation By ... Assessment, §§ 915, 1348 ... In the ... trial the court ... ...
-
Coon v. Henderson
...executed contemporaneously with the purchase. Code, § 7884; King et al. v. Chandler, 213 Ala. 337, 105 So. 184; Glass v. Tisdale, 106 Ala. 581, 19 So. 70; Adkins v. Bynum, 109 Ala. 281, 19 So. Likewise, it is settled in this jurisdiction that dower cannot prevail over a purchase-money mortg......