Mathis v. Holman

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Citation85 So. 710,204 Ala. 373
Docket Number4 Div. 887
Decision Date17 June 1920

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dale County; J.S. Williams, Judge.

Bill by Eugene Mathis against Y. Allen Holman to enforce a lien for work done and materials furnished in the repair of an automobile. From a decree sustaining demurrer to the bill complainant appeals. Reversed and rendered.

Chapman & Lewis, of Dothan, for appellant.

J.E Acker, of Ozark, for appellee.


Appellant filed his bill in equity to enforce a mechanic's lien for labor and materials furnished in repairing an automobile. A demurrer for want of equity in the bill was sustained by the trial court, on the theory that equitable jurisdiction for the enforcement of statutory liens, for which the statute gives a specific remedy at law, depends upon the existence of some special ground of equitable cognizance.

Such has, indeed, been the rule in this state. Chandler v Hanna, 73 Ala. 390. As to mechanics' and materialmen's liens under section 4754 of the Code, full concurrent jurisdiction was given to courts of equity, for claims exceeding $50, by the act of 1895 (section 2733, Code 1896). And section 4829, Code 1907, provides:

"The statutory modes provided in this Code for the enforcement of liens are not the exclusive modes of enforcing such liens; *** any lien may be enforced in the manner provided by statute, if so provided, or in equity, or by attachment for enforcing liens, or by any similar mode or remedy existing at common law." (Italics supplied.)

It is contended that this statute is merely declaratory of the pre-existing law and practice, and does not create in courts of equity a new jurisdiction concurrent with the jurisdiction of courts of law. This view of section 4829 must be rejected as unsound, for its language is clear, simple, and direct, and its purpose unmistakable.

Moreover, this court has several times construed it, without question apparently, as giving to lien claimants a concurrent remedy in equity. Bynum Merc. Co. v. Bank, 187 Ala. 281, 65 So. 815; Pearce v. Brilliant Coal Co., 200 Ala. 630, 77 So. 4, 7; Henderson v. Steiner-Lobman, etc., Co., 202 Ala. 325, 80 So. 407.

We hold that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer, and its decree will be reversed, and a decree here rendered overruling the demurrer to the bill.

Reversed and rendered.


To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. First Nat. Bank
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 24, 1932
    ... ... Vaughn, ... 204 Ala. 445, 85 So. 779, to compel transfer of corporate ... stock through pledge or mortgage thereof; Mathis v ... Holman, 204 Ala. 373, 85 So. 710, a mechanic's lien; ... Wynn, as Adm'r v. Tallapoosa County Bank, 168 ... Ala. 469, 53 So. 228, for ... ...
  • McLendon v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • November 6, 1939
  • Cumens v. Garrett
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • September 25, 1975
    ...Floyd v. Rambo, 250 Ala. 101, 104, 33 So.2d 360 (1948); Woodall v. Southern Mfg. Co., 223 Ala. 262, 135 So. 446 (1931); Mathis v. Holman, 204 Ala. 373, 85 So. 710 (1920). Other statutes pertinent to the decision in this case are sections 49 and 52 of Title 33. Section 49 'Such actions, when......
  • Baker Sand & Gravel Co. v. Rogers Plumbing & Heating Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 29, 1934
    ...Mortgage & Bond Co., 203 Ala. 93, 82 So. 107; Wimberly v. Mayberry & Co., 94 Ala. 240, 10 So. 157, 14 L. R. A. 305; Mathis v. Holman, 204 Ala. 373, 85 So. 710; Grayson v. Goolsby, 224 Ala. 75, 139 So. 106; C.J. page 506; Byrum Hardware Co. v. Jenkins Bldg. Supply Co., 226 Ala. 448, 147 So. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT