Jordan v. Lindsay
| Decision Date | 13 February 1902 |
| Citation | 31 So. 484,132 Ala. 567 |
| Parties | JORDAN v. LINDSAY. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Madison county; H. C. Speake, Judge.
Action by Dennis Lindsay against Will Jordan. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
J. C King and S. S. Pleasants, for appellant.
David A. Grayson, for appellee.
We are authorized and required by section 5 of the act of February 18, 1895, to review the finding and conclusion of the circuit judge trying this case without a jury on the evidence, though there was no special finding of the facts by the judge. Acts 1894-95, pp. 586-588. This is an action of trover, prosecuted by Lindsay against Jordan. By the terms of the agreement between Jordan, the owner of the land, and Lindsay, who undertook to cultivate it,--Jordan furnishing the land and the team, and Lindsay the labor, the crop to be equally divided,--a contract of hire existed between them, and not the relation of landlord and tenant, or of tenants in common in the crop. Out of this relation of employer and employé no title in the latter to the crop, or any part of it, could be evolved; but Lindsay had a lien merely on the crop for the value of the portion of it to which he was entitled, the title to the crop being in Jordan. Code, § 2712. Conceding that the arrangement between Lindsay and Hammond, whereby the latter united his labor with Lindsay's in making the crop, and was to receive one-half of the one-half to which Lindsay was entitled as against Jordan, put Hammond on the same footing as Lindsay,--and it surely could not do more,--Hammond himself could not maintain this action for the alleged conversion of the one-fourth part of the crop coming to him, because he had no title to it, but only a lien upon it. A lien upon property alleged to have been converted will not support trover. The plaintiff must have title, general or special, to the property. A mere right to charge it under a statutory lien will not suffice. As Hammond could not have maintained this suit, of course Lindsay, as the assignee assuming that he was the assignee of Hammond, could not maintain it. Gill v. State, 124 Ala. 73, 27 So. 253. The cases of Gardner v. Head, 108 Ala. 619, 18 So 551, and Ragsdale v. Kinney, 119 Ala. 454, 24 So 443, in so far as they bear upon this subject, are unsound and not to be followed. The court therefore erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Bass
...and not just an equitable lien, the principles applied in Jordan v. Henderson, 258 Ala. 419, 63 So.2d 379 (1953) and Jordan v. Lindsey, 132 Ala. 567, 31 So. 484 (1902), two cases on which Allen places substantial reliance, are of no VI. Conclusion By paying the contract balances to the IRS ......
-
Crow v. Beck
...... which he is entitled."'. . . This. statement of the title and lien is supported in Farrow v. Woolley & Jordan, 149 Ala. 373, 43 So. 144, where the. assignee of the laborer's lien was held not sufficient to. maintain trover; Jordan v. Lindsay, 132 Ala. 567, ......
-
McKindley v. Citizens State Bank of Edgeley
...... . . "When. the relation of the parties is that of debtor and creditor,. trover will not lie." Jordan v. Lindsay, 132. Ala. 567, 31 So. 484; Muskegon Boom Co. v. Hendricks, 89 Mich. 172, 50 N.W. 799; Borland v. Stokes,. 120 Pa. 278, 14 A. 61. ......
-
Stewart v. Young
...87 Ala. 89, 6 So. 270; Gardner v. Head, 108 Ala. 619, 18 So. 551; and Ragsdale v. Kinney, 119 Ala. 454, 24 So. 443. In Jordan v. Lindsay, 132 Ala. 567, 31 So. 484, followed by Farrow v. Wooley, 138 Ala. 267, 36 384, the above cases were overruled, and it was declared that, when one furnishe......