International Harvester Co. v. Simpson
| Decision Date | 19 March 1931 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 18. |
| Citation | 222 Ala. 493,133 So. 4 |
| Parties | INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. v. SIMPSON. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, DeKalb County; A. E. Hawkins, Judge.
Action by D. E. Simpson against the International Harvester Company to recover statutory penalty for failure to satisfy record of chattel mortgage after demand. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals.
Reversed and rendered.
London Yancey & Brower and Al G. Rives, all of Birmingham, for appellant.
John B Isbell, of Ft. Payne, for appellee.
Appellee sued appellant for the statutory penalty for the failure to enter satisfied on the margin of the record of a mortgage. Sections 9023, 9024, Code. He had given a chattel mortgage to secure two notes. Instead of paying the one which matured last, he obtained an extension upon the execution of another note and a mortgage on additional property. Both mortgages were promptly recorded. After the latter note matured for some fifty to sixty days, he paid it on October 26, 1929, and it and the new mortgage were sent to him. In a few days he wrote a letter to defendant as follows: "Upon examination of the records, I find that it has not been satisfied on mortgage that I paid on October 26, 1929, so please give this your attention and satisfy same at once." Thereupon defendant promptly had satisfaction entered upon the margin of the record of the later mortgage, but not on the older one, and wrote plaintiff that it was sending power of attorney to release the chattel mortgage on the record. After waiting the statutory period to expire and without further communication, he sued appellant for the failure to enter satisfaction on the record of the older mortgage, and recovered judgment. When suit was filed defendant wrote to plaintiff's counsel, and found out that the suit referred to the older mortgage and at once entered satisfaction of it on the record of this mortgage also.
The right to recover is dependent upon the one question of whether the notice was sufficiently definite to point clearly to the requirement that the older mortgage or both of them were referred to. We may repeat here that this statute is highly penal and to be strictly construed so as to accomplish its legitimate purpose, and not as one of oppression to accomplish a purpose not intended. Wilkerson v. Sorsby, 201 Ala. 182, 77 So. 708; Scales v. Rosenbush Furniture Co., 212 Ala. 19, 101 So. 743; Martin v. Walker, 196 Ala. 469, 71 So. 667; Chattanooga N. B. & L. Ass'n v. Echols, 125 Ala. 548, 27 So. 975, 977.
A notice to the mortgagee by the mortgagor directing the satisfaction on the record of all recorded mortgages given by the mortgagor to the mortgagee, which have been paid, is sufficiently definite. Dothan Guano Co. v. Ward, 132 Ala. 380, 31 So. 748; Henderson v. Wilson, 139 Ala. 327, 36 So. 516.
But a notice "to take my note off the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Potts v. Ellis
...Co. v. Simpson, 222 Ala. 493, 133 So. 45; citing Dothan Guano Co. v. Ward, supra; Henderson v. Wilson, supra. In International Harvester Co. v. Simpson, supra, it observed: "In the instant case the notice referred to one mortgage only, but did not describe or clearly refer to any certain mo......
-
Burns v. Burns
... ... The authorities noted in ... the recent case of International Harvester Co. v ... Simpson, 222 Ala. 493, 133 So. 4 (to which many others, ... including Butler ... ...
- Edwards v. Russell
-
Henderson v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co.
... ... sufficiency of a notice under a statute like ours is ... contained in International Harvester C. v. Simpson, ... 222 Ala. 493, 133 So. 4, at 5, as follows: ... "The ... ...