J. C. Walden Auto Co. v. Mixon

• Decision Date: 20 April 1916
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 631
• Citation: 196 Ala. 346,71 So. 694
• Parties: J. C. WALDEN AUTO CO. v. MIXON.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

71 So. 694

196 Ala. 346

J. C. WALDEN AUTO CO. v. MIXON.

4 Div. 631

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 20, 1916

Appeal from Circuit Court, Houston County; H.A. Pearce, Judge.

Action by J.C. Walden, doing business as the J.C. Walden Auto Company, to enforce a lien for repairs upon the automobile of John P. Harrell, with claim interposed by Travis Mixon. Judgment for claimant, and plaintiff appeals. Transferred from the Court of Appeals under section 6, p. 450, Acts 1911 Affirmed.

Martin & Crawford and E.S. Thigpen, all of Dothan, for appellant.

Espy &amp Farmer, of Dothan, for appellee.

THOMAS J.

The suit was to enforce a lien for material used and labor done in the repair of a certain automobile. The claimant, Mixon appellee on this appeal, rested his right and title on a mortgage given on the car by the owner, and duly recorded before the repairs were made by plaintiff. The mortgage was due and unpaid at the time of the institution of the suit and the trial. The repairs were authorized by one Harrell, who was then in the lawful possession of the car, and was in such possession at the time the suit was instituted.

Appellant asserted his lien for such material and labor on the car, and sought its enforcement under sections 4785 et seq. of the Code of 1907. Appellant further cites, as authority for the superiority of his lien for necessary repairs to that of the mortgage on the property. Broom et al. v. Dale et al. (Miss.) 67 So. 659, L.R.A.1915D, 1146; Reeves & Co. v. Russell et al., 28 N.D. 265, 148 N.W. 654, L.R.A 1915D, 1149; Watts v. Sweeney, 127 Ind. 116, 26 N.E. 680, 22 Am.St.Rep. 615.

At common law persons had the right to retain goods on which they had bestowed labor, until the reasonable charges therefor were paid. 2 Kent's Comm. 635.

It has been held that at common law a mechanic's lien for repairs under special circumstances may be superior to prior existing liens on the property. In Drummond Carriage Co. v. Mills, 54 Neb. 417, 74 N.W. 966, 40 L.R.A. 761, 69 Am.St.Rep. 719, a case where a physician had executed a chattel mortgage on a buggy used by him in his practice, and thereafter had made repairs on the vehicle, such use by the mortgagor and the fact that the buggy was left in the shops of the carriage company for repairs being known to the mortgagee, the holding was as follows:

"We are not holding that in all cases, or generally, the common-law lien will override and be superior to the prior chattel mortgage lien, but that in cases where the mortgagor can be said to have expressed or implied authority from the mortgagee to procure repairs to be made on the mortgaged property it will be so."

Thus are the facts in the Drummond Carriage Company Case distinguished from the facts in the case for decision. Here, the mortgagee-claimant did not know that the automobile had been left for repairs, with the appellant, J.C. Walden Auto Company.

In Watts v. Sweeney, 127 Ind. 116, 26 N.E. 680, 22 Am.St.Rep. 615, the improvements were made on an engine belonging to the mortgagor and used in operating a railroad, by the terms of the mortgage left in the possession of the mortgagor, and after the debt became due it was still permitted by the mortgagee to remain in the possession of the mortgagor to be so used. The court held that under such circumstances the necessary implication was that the engine was to be kept in repair and by a machinist, and that such machinist would have a lien for the amount of the repairs. The repairs so made added to the value of the property and were for the benefit of the mortgagee as well as of the mortgagor.

So in the case of Broom et al. v. Dale et al., supra, the automobile was in the possession of the mortgagor, and being used by him, with the knowledge and consent of the mortgagee and such possession and use continued for a long time. In that case the mortgagee "not only knew and consented to the general use of the automobile, *** but also had knowledge that in the course of his (mortgagor's) use of the property he was having it repaired and *** with this knowledge made no objection to the repairs being made; *** the repairs were such as were necessary to preserve the automobile and keep it in proper condition for its use." From these statements it will be observed that the facts on which the...