Hargett v. Franklin County
Decision Date | 22 January 1925 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 705 |
Citation | 103 So. 40,212 Ala. 423 |
Parties | HARGETT v. FRANKLIN COUNTY et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Franklin County; B.H. Sargent Judge.
Bill in equity by C.W. Hargett against Franklin County and R.P Millican. From a decree sustaining demurrer to the bill complainant appeals. Affirmed.
J. Foy Guin, of Russellville, for appellant.
Williams & Chenault, of Russellville, for appellees.
The appeal is from the decree sustaining demurrers to the bill praying ascertainment and allowance of "a reasonable compensation for the right of way" over complainant's land "and *** other damages and injuries suffered by the complainant"; that a "money judgment against both respondents be rendered"; and that the respondent county of Franklin "be forever enjoined and restrained from the use of said right of way until said judgment and the costs of suit are paid in full."
It is further averred that complainant is the owner of the fee to the road bed in question and of the alleged right of way; that the county maintains "a public road there along" (italics supplied), and claims the right of way in disregard of complainant's rights in the premises, and has taken the same "without process of law." It is further alleged that in the building of the public road the county caused to be removed from "its purported right of way" a barn for which complainant has not been compensated; that he duly filed a written claim for this property and damages with the court of county revenue of Franklin county, which was "disallowed" by that body; and that thereupon he "withdrew his said claim, and now files this suit to compel payment."
It is of statutory declaration that no estate or interest of any person can be defeated, discontinued, or extinguished by the act of any third person having a possessory or ulterior interest, except in cases specially provided by law (Code 1907, § 3406; Tulley v. Snow, 190 Ala. 556, 68 So. 301); nor by the widow (Reynolds v. Love, 191 Ala. 218, 68 So. 27); nor the life tenant. The estate held by Millican after his purchase at foreclosure sale, and before expiration of the time for statutory redemption, was that of the fee (Morrison v. Formby, 191 Ala. 104, 67 So. 668), and determinable by the exercise of a personal and statutory privilege by the mortgagor (Baker, Lyons & Co. v. Eliasburg, etc., Co., 201 Ala. 591, 79 So. 13), a redemption of the property (Toney v. Chenault, 204 Ala. 329, 85 So. 742; Code 1923, § 10140, notes). That is to say, by its deed from Millican to the right of way as such the county obtained the rights, title, and interest possessed by that grantor, and no greater right, title, or interest. Arnold v. Black, 204 Ala. 632, 87 So. 170; 3 Pom.Eq.Jur. (4th Ed.) § 1048.
The statutory redemption alleged must have been effected under the amended statute of force at the time. Code 1907, §§ 5746, 5748; Acts 1911, p. 391. Redemption operates on the legal title, and is against such holder. Hamilton v. Cody, 206 Ala. 102, 89 So. 240. Under that statute, written "demand for charges" may be made by any one entitled to redeem "of the purchaser, or if said real estate has been sold such demand may be made upon either the purchaser or his vendee." (Italics supplied.) In Brannan v. Adams, 202 Ala. 442, 80 So. 826, it was declared that a demand duly made on the purchaser's vendee was sufficient. In that case the whole premises had been conveyed after foreclosure. Where there was "demand" made upon the purchaser at foreclosure sale, and not upon his several grantees who claimed an interest by subsequent executory contracts of sale, it was held sufficient, since the statute provided for a demand upon the party holding the legal title, and not upon mere contract purchasers. Morrison v. Formby, 191 Ala. 104, 67 So. 668; Snow v. Montesano Land Co., 206 Ala. 310, 311, 89 So. 719; Hamilton v. Cody, 206 Ala. 102, 89 So. 240; Lacy v. Fowler, 206 Ala. 679, 91 So. 593.
It is further declared that redemption cannot be effected by "piecemeal," but of the entire tract sold ( Slaughter v. Webb, 205 Ala. 334, 87 So. 854; Francis v. White, 166 Ala. 409, 410, 52 So. 349; Cowley v. Shields, 180 Ala. 48, 60 So. 267; Harden v. Collins, 138 Ala. 399, 35 So. 357, 100 Am.St.Rep. 42; Prichard v. Sweeney, 109 Ala. 651, 19 So. 730; Roulhac v. Jones, 78 Ala. 398); that, where the lands have been broken into separate tracts or lots in the foreclosure, the mortgagor may maintain a bill in equity against the purchaser of a parcel for redemption, without bringing in the purchasers of the other parcels and prayer for "a single conjoint redemption of both parcels" (Lord v. Blue, 200 Ala. 521, 76 So. 463; Snow v. Montesano Land Co., 206 Ala. 310, 89 So. 719; Johnson v. Williams [[Ala.Sup.] 102 So. 527).
It is established that the averment, in a bill to redeem, that the purchaser at an execution sale has conveyed some of the parcels of land to other persons is sufficient excuse for a failure on the part of the redemptioner to pay or tender to the purchaser or his vendee the amount required to effectuate redemption, when, by the subsequent acts of the purchaser, he has put it beyond the power of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dewberry v. Bank of Standing Rock
... ... Rehearing Denied Nov. 9, 1933 ... Appeal ... from Circuit Court, Chambers County; W. B. Bowling, Judge ... Bill in ... equity by G. W. Dewberry and Lola Dewberry ... as the act of redemption is an "indivisible entity" ... ( Hargett v. Franklin County, 212 Ala. 423, 103 So ... 40; Hobson v. Robertson, 224 Ala. 49, 138 So ... ...
-
Dean v. Lusk
... ... Ala. 520] ... [3 So.2d 311] ... Appeal ... from Circuit Court, Marshall County; A.E. Hawkins, ... [3 So.2d 312] ... [241 ... Ala. 521] Street & Orr, of ... but must be of the entire tract sold. Hargett v. Franklin ... County, 212 Ala. 423, 103 So. 40. "The process ... contemplated and required by ... ...
-
Hobson v. Robertson
... ... Appeal ... from Circuit Court, Clarke County; T. J. Bedsole, Judge ... Bill to ... remove cloud from title by S. A. Hobson against ... 104, 106, 67 So. 668; Hamilton v ... Cody, 206 Ala. 102, 104, 89 So. 240; Hargett v ... Franklin County, 212 Ala. 423, 103 So. 40 ... In ... Allison v. Cody, 206 Ala ... ...
-
Mobile County v. Barnes-Creary Supply Co.
... ... Birmingham Belt Ry. Co. v ... Lockwood, supra; Birmingham Traction Co. v. Birmingham ... Ry. & Elec. Co., 119 Ala. 129, 24 So. 368; Hargett ... v. Franklin County, 212 Ala. 423, 103 So. 40; City ... of Troy v. Watkins, 201 Ala. 274, 78 So. 50; Niehaus ... & Co. v. Cooke, 134 Ala. 223, ... ...