Landrum & Co. v. Wright
| Decision Date | 24 November 1914 |
| Docket Number | 124 |
| Citation | 11 Ala.App. 406,66 So. 892 |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
| Parties | LANDRUM & CO. v. WRIGHT et al. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Tallapoosa County; S.L. Brewer, Judge.
Action by T.L. Wright and others against one Mooney, in which Landrum & Company appeared as claimant. From a judgment for plaintiffs, the claimant appeals. Affirmed.
Bulger & Rylance, of Dadeville, for appellant.
J.W Strother, of Dadeville, for appellees.
The appellees, T.L., J.E., and O.M. Wright, sued out an attachment against one Mooney, for the purpose of enforcing an alleged landlord's lien claimed by them for advances--all rents having been previously paid--and caused the writ to be levied upon the crops grown by said Mooney during the year 1912 on the rented premises. The appellants Landrum & Co., interposed a claim to the property, which claim was predicated upon a mortgage shown without dispute to be unsatisfied and to have been duly executed to the claimants by Mooney on January 15, 1912, long before the issuance and levy of the attachment. The right of the plaintiffs to subject the property levied upon to the satisfaction of the attachment writ depended, therefore, upon whether or not they had, as alleged, a landlord's lien on the property for advances; otherwise it is conceded that the claimants were entitled to recover under the mortgage, as, in such event, the mortgage was the superior lien. Code, § 4734.
The material facts relied on as constituting such landlord's lien in the plaintiffs were without dispute, and, at the conclusion of the evidence, the court, at the request of plaintiffs, gave the general affirmative charge in their favor. The correctness of its action in doing this is the principal point before us for decision. Summarizing these facts, they may be stated, in substance, to be as follows The defendant in attachment, said Mooney, during the year 1910 lived on and cultivated as a tenant the lands of one W.A. Langley, and the latter as landlord, in order to enable Mooney to procure supplies with which to make a crop that year, applied, with Mooney's consent, to the Camp Hill Supply Company to furnish them, which they did, directly to Mooney, entering the charge therefor upon their books against Mooney and Langley jointly, and looking to both, as was undisputed, for payment--Langley having at the time verbally agreed "to see it [the account for such supplies] paid." At the end of the year Mooney paid up all rent due Langley, but failed to pay either him or the Camp Hill Supply Company for the advances mentioned, and desired to move himself and his farm produce (consisting of corn fodder, cotton seed, etc., raised that year on Langley's place and of the aggregate value of about $200) to the plantation of one J.T. Wright, from whom he, Mooney, had rented land for the following year, 1911. Langley, as landlord, interposed an objection and forbade Mooney to move any of the produce mentioned, until he, Mooney, first paid him for the said supplies furnished by the Camp Hill Supply Company (amounting to several hundred dollars), for which Langley was responsible in the way stated. Mooney, being without funds, after informing Wright of the fact and that he could not get his produce from Langley's premises until he paid Langley for the advances mentioned, applied to Wright, as his new landlord, to advance him the necessary funds to that end. Thereupon Wright, on December 19, 1910, wrote, signed, and sent to Langley by Mooney a note saying, in substance and effect, that he, Wright, would be responsible for the amount due by Mooney, and to let him move. Langley accepted this as entirely sufficient, and then and there consented for Mooney to remove the produce, which he did, to Wright's premises, which he cultivated during the years 1911 and 1912. In December, 1911, before Wright ever paid the debt of Mooney for which he so became responsible, Wright died intestate, leaving no debts except the obligation stated, and leaving as the only heirs and distributees of his estate his three sons, who are the present plaintiffs, and who, after their father's death, paid said debt of Mooney, for which Wright had so become responsible; and, upon the refusal of Mooney, who remained on the same lands as tenant, to repay them, they sued out the present attachment on, to wit, October 17, 1912, to enforce an alleged landlord's lien therefor--Mooney having before the attachment paid up all rent and other advances. It was also proved without dispute that there never was any administration upon Wright's estate or any necessity therefor. We are of opinion that under these undisputed facts the court committed no error in giving the general affirmative charge for the plaintiffs. They, as the heirs of their father, were his successors in interest and as such admittedly stood and stand in his shoes, and the case may, for all practical purposes, be treated as if he were the plaintiff and had himself paid the said debt which he assumed for Mooney.
The produce (corn, cotton seed, fodder, etc.) which, by the assumption on the part of Wright of the debt mentioned Mooney was enabled to get released from Langley's landlord's lien and to remove and consume in the making of the crop on Wright's premises, were such in kind and character as clearly to fall within the class of articles which, within the meaning of the statute quoted, would constitute "advances for the well-being and sustenance of the tenant and his family," etc. If Wright had bought them outright and furnished them directly to Mooney, or with Mooney's consent had procured another to do so by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Gunter
-
Hornady v. Plaza Realty Co., Inc.
...rule in Alabama is that the Statute of Frauds applies only to executory contracts, not to executed contracts. Landrum & Co. v. Wright, 11 Ala.App. 406, 66 So. 892 (Ala.Ct.App.1914); Scott v. Southern Coach & Body Co., 280 Ala. 670, 197 So.2d 775 Plaza asserts that its contract with Hornady ......