Hoots v. Williams

• Decision Date: 17 June 1897
• Citation: 116 Ala. 372,22 So. 497
• Parties: HOOTS v. WILLIAMS ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

22 So. 497

116 Ala. 372

HOOTS v. WILLIAMS ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 17, 1897

Appeal from chancery court, Lamar county; William H. Simpson Chancellor.

Bill by William R. Hoots, Jr., against John Williams and others. From judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Nesmith & Nesmith and Daniel Collier, for appellant.

J. D McClusky, J. C. Milner, and S. J. Shields, for appellees.

COLEMAN J.

The bill was filed to enforce a vendor's lien upon certain land, to satisfy a balance of purchase money alleged to be due from L. A. Hoots, the vendee. An absolute deed of conveyance, acknowledging full payment of purchase money with covenants of warranty, was made to the vendee, and no note or other evidence of the unpaid purchase money was taken from the vendee.

L. A Hoots, the purchaser, executed a mortgage upon the land to one Johnson, to secure a loan of money, and a past-due account. This mortgage was foreclosed according to its terms, and John Williams, the respondent, became the purchaser of the land at the foreclosure sale. Complainant's claim is resisted upon three grounds: First, that all the purchase money was paid by L. A. Hoots, the purchaser; second, that respondent Williams was an innocent purchaser at the foreclosure sale, and entitled to protection as such; and, third, that complainant has estopped himself from asserting a vendor's lien upon the land. Upon final hearing the chancellor found from the evidence that there was nothing due complainant, and dismissed his bill. The appeal is taken from this decree. There was evidence, certainly, which justified the conclusion of the chancery court. The complainant relied upon his own testimony, and that of his brother and father, to establish the claim that there was a balance of purchase money due from the vendee of the land. While there were some other witnesses who sustained the general character of these witnesses as being worthy of credit, in our opinion the evidence that they were not worthy of credit, considered in connection with the other facts of the case, preponderated. It is singular that on the day of sale the complainant, though present, gave no notice of his claim, but allowed the sale to proceed without objection. According to some of the testimony, which is not impeached, on the day of the foreclosure sale the complainant stated he had nothing against the land. We are of opinion, however, that the...