Matthis v. Thurman
| Decision Date | 01 June 1905 |
| Citation | 39 So. 360,143 Ala. 558 |
| Parties | MATTHIS v. THURMAN. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from City Court of Talladega; G. K. Miller, Judge.
Action by A. J. Thurman against J. D. Matthis. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
The evidence for the plaintiff on the trial showed that he purchased the tools involved in the suit as the property of one W. A. Bean, at a sale under an execution issued upon a judgment rendered in favor of A. J. Thurman against said W A. Bean, June 18, 1902; that after plaintiff purchased and paid for the tools they were turned over to him, and remained in his possession until January, 1904, when the defendant, in his absence and without his consent, went into plaintiff's shop and took possession of the tools. The evidence for the defendant showed that he purchased the tools in the year 1893, while living in Montgomery county; that soon after he purchased them he loaned them, or left them in the possession of his son-in-law, W. A. Bean, the defendant in judgment, from whom the plaintiff in detinue suit claimed title through execution and sale; and that the said Bean had been in possession by consent ever since.
D. H Riddle, for appellant.
Knox Dixon & Burr, for appellee.
The uncontradicted evidence of the defendant was that he bought the property in 1893, and still owns it, but that he turned it over to W. A. Bean, his son-in-law, the defendant to the judgment under which plaintiff claims title as purchaser, and that the said Bean had been in possession by his consent ever since. While there was no proof of a technical loan, the proof brings the transaction within the terms of section 1013 of the Code of 1896, "vesting the title in the person in possession under such a loan, as to purchasers and creditors of such person, after three years from the commencement of such loan," etc. Carr v. Lester, 90 Ala. 349, 8 So. 35; Myers v. Peck, 2 Ala. 648; Gressett v Agee, 14 Ala. 354.
In order, however, for the plaintiff to have a title superior to that of the original owner, he must hold under a purchaser or a creditor who purchased the property or gave credit to the person in possession three years after the commencement of the loan, as said section does not apply to creditors anterior to the loan or the expiration of three years from the commencement thereof. Carew v. Love, 30 Ala. 577; Durden v. McWilliams, 31 Ala. 206.
The burden is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Citizens' Bank of Guntersville v. Pearson
... ... unrecorded mortgage as a purchaser or a subsequent creditor, ... is the subject of Mathis v. Thurman, 143 Ala. 558, ... 39 So. 360; Diamond Rubber Co. v. Fourth Nat. Bank, ... 171 Ala. 420, 425, 55 So. 100; Donahoo Horse & Mule Co ... v ... ...
-
Electrical Research Products v. Ford, 4 Div. 716.
...no lien superior to appellant's under section 6898 of the Code. The burden of proof in this case was upon the plaintiff. Mathis v. Thurman, 143 Ala. 558, 39 So. 360. We indicated that plaintiff failed to support his asserted superior right. The record shows that the property had not been in......
-
Choctaw Bank v. Dearmon
... ... 655, 103 So. 839; Jackson v ... Wilson Bros., 201 Ala. 529, 78 So. 883; Hill v ... Rentz, 201 Ala. 527, 78 So. 881; Mathis v ... Thurman, 143 Ala. 560, 39 So. 360; Carew v ... Love's Adm'r, 30 Ala. 577; Durden v ... McWilliams, 31 Ala. 206 ... The ... failure of the ... ...
-
Kinney v. La Frange
...although it appears that LaFrange became indebted to the company on April 12, 1950, or some time prior thereto. In Mathis v. Thurman, 143 Ala. 558, 39 So. 360, 361, the Supreme Court in considering Section 1013, Code 1896, (now Sec. 127), 'In order, however, for the plaintiff to have a titl......