Johnson v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 12 February 1914 |
| Citation | 185 Ala. 666,64 So. 554 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. THOMPSON. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; D.W. Speake, Judge.
Conversion by J.T. Thompson against L.H. Johnson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Plaintiff sued the defendant in an action on the case for the conversion of certain cotton, upon which plaintiff claimed a lien for rent and advances for the year 1911, as landlord of Clarence Hendrix, who grew the cotton on the rented premises. The evidence for plaintiff tended to show that he leased the particular lands to Clarence Hendrix, and made advances to him. The defendant's evidence tended to show that plaintiff leased the land to Enoch Hendrix, who in turn leased it to his son, Clarence Hendrix. The land in question was a separate and distinct tract known as the Baker field and it was leased by plaintiff for a separate and distinct rental of $50. According to the testimony of Enoch and Clarence Hendrix, Enoch released the entire tract to Clarence for a year for $50. According to the testimony of plaintiff his claim for advances included an item of $50 for money paid by him on a mortgage given by Clarence Hendrix to a third party, and covering a mule which Clarence was then using in the cultivation of the crop. The mortgage was overdue, and at Clarence's request, plaintiff paid the balance due on it to the mortgagee, and had the mortgage transferred to himself.
The trial court refused to give the following charges requested by defendant:
R.E. Smith and Douglass Taylor, both of Huntsville, for appellant.
Betts & Betts, of Huntsville, for appellee.
The two questions presented for review are comprehended in the special charges requested by and refused to defendant.
Conceding without deciding, that a landlord has no lien upon the crops of a subtenant for advances made directly to him, and that plaintiff could not recover in this case unless he were the landlord of Clarence Hendrix during the time the advances were made to him, defendant was nevertheless not entitled to an instruction denying plaintiff's right to recover unless he had rented the land to Clarence Hendrix, or if he had rented it to Enoch Hendrix, for the year 1911. The undisputed evidence shows either that plaintiff rented to Clarence directly, or else that, having rented to Enoch, the latter in turn rented the entire tract for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Houston v. Drake, 8719.
...135 Ga. 451, 69 S.E. 734; Campbell v. Short, 65 Okl. 312, 166 P. 438; Forrest v. Durnell, 86 Tex. 647, 26 S.W. 481; Johnson v. Thompson, 185 Ala. 666, 668, 64 So. 554; Essex Lunch v. Boston Lunch Co., 229 Mass. 557, 118 N.E. 899; Speed v. Jay, Tex.Civ.App., 267 S.W. 1033; Fanta v. Maddex, 8......
-
Tollius v. Dutch Inns of America, Inc.
...The lease to Liveco, Inc. was, in fact, a sub-lease, it being for less than the balance of the term of the basic lease. Johnson v. Thompson, 185 Ala. 666, 64 So. 554; Cities Service Oil Co. v. Taylor, 242 Ky. 157, 45 S.W.2d 1039; Marcelle, Inc. v. Sol & S. Marcus Co., 274 Mass. 469, 175 N.E......
-
John Hilsman Invs., LLC v. Quality Props., LLC., 1:11–CV–1417–KOB.
...Pantry, Inc. v. Mosley, 126So.3d 152, –––– n. 2, 2013 WL 1858777, at *7 n. 2 (Ala.2013) (citation omitted); Johnson v. Thompson, 185 Ala. 666, 64 So. 554, 555 (1914). Such an assignment by a lessee divests the assignor—the original lessee—of any reversionary interest in the property. Johnso......
-
Staples v. Pearson
... ... tenant parts with his entire interest for the term, reserving ... no reversionary right. Johnson v. Thompson, 185 Ala ... 666, 64 So. 554; Johnson v. Moxley, 216 Ala. 466, ... 113 So. 656; Nunnally Co. v. Bromberg & Co., 217 ... Ala. 180, 115 ... ...