McAnally v. Hawkins Lumber Co.

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtHARALSON, J.
Citation19 So. 417,109 Ala. 397
PartiesMCANALLY v. HAWKINS LUMBER CO.
Decision Date30 January 1896

19 So. 417

109 Ala. 397

MCANALLY
v.
HAWKINS LUMBER CO.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 30, 1896


Appeal from circuit court, Jefferson county; James J. Banks, Judge.

Action by the Hawkins Lumber Company against Catherine McAnally and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant Catherine McAnally appeals. Reversed.

This action was brought by the Hawkins Lumber Company against Catherine McAnally and her husband, Patrick McAnally, to recover an amount alleged to be due for lumber furnished by the plaintiff at the request of the defendants, which lumber was used in building and improving certain houses on a specifically described lot. The plaintiff claimed a lien on said lot and building for the sum sued for, and claimed a further sum as a reasonable attorney's fee. The defendants pleaded the general issue, and the following special pleas: (2) "And for further plea, defendants say, that the premises upon which the material is alleged to have been furnished by plaintiff and used by defendants, were the homestead of these defendants, and they still reside upon the same as their homestead, and the same was not and is not subject to the lien by plaintiff." (3) "And for further plea the defendant Catherine McAnally says, that at the time said material is alleged to have been furnished or sold by plaintiff, this defendant was then and now is a married woman, the wife of Patrick McAnally, and that the property or premises described in said complaint was then and is now the separate property of this defendant; and that this defendant did not authorize the said Patrick McAnally to purchase said lumber, or to use the same upon said property; but the same was purchased by said Patrick McAnally without the knowledge or consent of this defendant, and without any authority from her, either to purchase or use the same upon said property; and this defendant further avers that since said lumber was purchased and used, she has not ratified said purchase, nor promised to pay for said material." (4) "Comes the defendant, Catherine McAnally, by her attorney, and leave of the court being first had, for further plea to said complaint says: That the lumber and material claimed to have been furnished by plaintiff in said complaint was not used in building or improving or repairing, etc., nor in any other manner, upon said block 458 in the city of Birmingham, as in said complaint alleged; and this defendant is ready to verify, wherefore," etc. (5) "And for further plea in this behalf defendant says she did not purchase the lumber or material claimed to have been furnished by plaintiff, nor was said lumber furnished at her request or by her authority; but she avers the fact to be that said lumber was furnished while she was absent from home, and without her knowledge or consent; and if any was used on said premises, the same was used without her knowledge or consent; nor has she at any time since the alleged furnishing of said material by plaintiff, ratified the said purchase or agreed to pay for the same or any part thereof. And said defendant further alleges that said block upon which said lien is claimed is her sole property, and not the property of her codefendant, Patrick McAnally." The plaintiff demurred to the second plea on the ground that it contains no facts which are sufficient to prevent either a personal judgment against the defendants or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • Union Indemnity Co. v. Webster, 6 Div. 950
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 25 Octubre 1928
    ...288, 76 So. 54; Powell v. Crawford, 110 Ala. 294, 18 So. 302; Murphy v. Farley, 124 Ala. 279, 27 So. 442; McAnally v. Hawkins Lumber Co., 109 Ala. 397, 19 So. 417; Williamson v. Mayer Bros., 117 Ala. 253, 23 So. 3; [118 So. 798] Ex parte L. & N.R. Co., 211 Ala. 531, 100 So. The distinction ......
  • Plunkett v. Dendy, 6 Div. 306
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 30 Junio 1916
    ...supra) the suit against the defendants will be taken to have been a joint action ex contractu. In McAnally v. Hawkins L. Co., 109 Ala. 398, 19 So. 417, an action by a materialman to enforce a statutory lien, the court said: "The evidence shows a contract, if with any one, with defendant P. ......
  • Veitch v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 756
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 6 Abril 1915
    ...sued three defendants on a joint contract or obligation made by all, must recover against all or none. McAnally v. Hawkins Lumber Co., 109 Ala. 397, 19 So. 417. The statute is remedial in its nature, and must be liberally construed so as to suppress the evil at which it is directed and adva......
  • Fletchercrowell Co. v. Chevalier
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • 22 Noviembre 1911
    ...170; Fitch v. Howitt, 32 Or. 396, 52 Pac. 192; Silvester v. Coe Quartz Mine Co., 80 Cal. 513, 22 Pac. 217; McAnally v. Hawkins Lumber Co., 109 Ala. 397, 19 South. 417; Wardlaw v. Troy Oil Mill, 74 S. C. 368, 53 S. E. 658, 114 Am. St. Rep. The principles of equitable estoppel are not applica......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • Union Indemnity Co. v. Webster, 6 Div. 950
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 25 Octubre 1928
    ...288, 76 So. 54; Powell v. Crawford, 110 Ala. 294, 18 So. 302; Murphy v. Farley, 124 Ala. 279, 27 So. 442; McAnally v. Hawkins Lumber Co., 109 Ala. 397, 19 So. 417; Williamson v. Mayer Bros., 117 Ala. 253, 23 So. 3; [118 So. 798] Ex parte L. & N.R. Co., 211 Ala. 531, 100 So. The distinction ......
  • Plunkett v. Dendy, 6 Div. 306
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 30 Junio 1916
    ...supra) the suit against the defendants will be taken to have been a joint action ex contractu. In McAnally v. Hawkins L. Co., 109 Ala. 398, 19 So. 417, an action by a materialman to enforce a statutory lien, the court said: "The evidence shows a contract, if with any one, with defendant P. ......
  • Fletchercrowell Co. v. Chevalier
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • 22 Noviembre 1911
    ...170; Fitch v. Howitt, 32 Or. 396, 52 Pac. 192; Silvester v. Coe Quartz Mine Co., 80 Cal. 513, 22 Pac. 217; McAnally v. Hawkins Lumber Co., 109 Ala. 397, 19 South. 417; Wardlaw v. Troy Oil Mill, 74 S. C. 368, 53 S. E. 658, 114 Am. St. Rep. The principles of equitable estoppel are not applica......
  • Veitch v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 756
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 6 Abril 1915
    ...sued three defendants on a joint contract or obligation made by all, must recover against all or none. McAnally v. Hawkins Lumber Co., 109 Ala. 397, 19 So. 417. The statute is remedial in its nature, and must be liberally construed so as to suppress the evil at which it is directed and adva......
  • 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