McDonald v. Stephens
| Decision Date | 10 June 1920 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 869 |
| Parties | McDONALD v. STEPHENS. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Barbour County; J.S. Williams, Judge.
Action by Mrs. C.B. Stephens begun by attachment against Bill Jackson, with levy upon certain corn and claim to the same by J.A. McDonald. Judgment for plaintiff, and claimant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Acts 1911, p. 450, § 6. Affirmed.
McDowell & McDowell, of Eufaula, for appellant.
E.W Norton, of Clio, and G.W. Peach, of Clayton, for appellee.
In statutory claim suits, under sections 6039, 6040, of the Code of 1907, the statute itself defines and restricts the decisive issue to be submitted to the jury. Keyser v Maas, 111 Ala. 390, 21 So. 346. The plaintiff in execution or in attachment "must allege that the property claimed is the property of the defendant in the writ and is liable to its satisfaction." The claimant simply denies this allegation, and the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. This is the only proper issue. Warren v. Liddell, 110 Ala. 232, 20 So. 89, and cases cited; Lehman & Co. v. Warren, 53 Ala. 535; B. & A.M. Co. v. Cody, 135 Ala. 622, 33 So. 832.
When the officer making the levy returns the writ, together with the bond and affidavit of the claimant, they become papers of record in the cause (Lanier v. Branch Bank, 18 Ala. 625, 627; Thomas v. Henderson, 27 Ala. 523, 529), and are the basis of the court's jurisdiction to proceed to the trial of the claim (Jackson v. Bain, 74 Ala. 328, 330; Mobile Life Ins. Co. v. Teague, 78 Ala. 147; House v. West, 108 Ala. 355, 19 So. 913; Catching v. Bowden, 89 Ala. 604, 8 So. 58; Dollins v. Pollock, 89 Ala. 351, 356, 7 So. 904; Nordlinger v. Gordon, 72 Ala. 239, 240).
It is obvious, therefore, that the court must and does at the outset take judicial cognizance of the writ and of the bond and affidavit before it can submit the statutory issue of fact to the jury. The trial of the right of property, as authorized by the statute, presupposes the existence of a valid writ and its levy upon the property claimed. If the writ is invalid, void upon its face, or bears no officer's return showing its levy, there can be no trial, since, as observed by Stone, J., in Jackson v. Bain, 74 Ala. 328, 330, the plaintiff "falls before he reaches the adversary's outworks." In such a case the claimant, having complied with the statute, would be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Jackson v. Bain, supra, 74 Ala. 330, 331; Nordlinger v. Gordon, 72 Ala. 239, 240; Brown v. Hurt, 31 Ala. 146.
By filing his affidavit and bond the claimant conclusively admits the fact and validity of the levy, if officially indorsed and returned, but not the validity of the writ itself. Bradford v. Bassett, 151 Ala. 520, 44 So. 59; Sloan v. Hudson, 119 Ala. 31, 24 So. 459; Dollins v. Pollock, 89 Ala. 351, 7 So. 904; Hill v. Rentz, 201 Ala. 527, 78 So. 881. But mere irregularities which do not render the writ void on its face are of no consequence in this proceeding, and are of no avail to the claimant. Carter v. O'Bryan, 105 Ala. 305, 314, 16 So. 894, and cases cited; Nordlinger v. Gordon, 72 Ala. 239.
From the language of the statute (section 6040), and from the numerous decisions of this court, we deduce the rule that the trial court must, of necessity, take judicial notice of the writ as returned by the officer, as well as of the affidavit and bond filed by the claimant, as the primary records in the case, upon which its jurisdiction is founded; from which it results that it is wholly unnecessary for either party to introduce them in evidence upon the issue submitted to the jury.
In practice parties have frequently introduced those documents in evidence, and they have always been held to be properly admitted. Cochran v. Garrard, 150 Ala. 579, 43 So. 721; Schamagel v. Whitehurst, 103 Ala. 260, 15 So. 611; Guy v. Lee, 81 Ala. 163, 2 So. 273, and cases cited; Pulliam v. Newberry's Adm'r, 41 Ala. 175; Gayle v. Bancroft's Adm'r, 22 Ala. 316. In contests between a plaintiff in execution and a donee or purchaser from the defendant in execution, the issue of actual or constructive fraud may be presented, and the existence and date of the plaintiff's debt becomes material and decisive. In such cases the debt is sufficiently proven by the introduction in evidence of the writ of execution, from which a valid judgment is presumed. Cochran v. Garrard, 150 Ala. 579, 43 So. 721. But, of course, the debt may as well be proven by other means, and the writ need not be used except as a matter of choice and convenience. So, the bond and affidavit may contain recitals which are relevant as admissions or contradictions, and may be used for those purposes, just as any other competent evidence may be used, upon questions affecting title, identity, or value. But they are aids merely, and not necessities in the proof.
In the case of Jackson v. Bain, 74 Ala. 328, the second headnote is misleading, unless read in connection with the opinion, which merely holds that the record must show a levy of valid process, and does not require the plaintiff to formally introduce the writ in evidence. The same criticism may be made of the first headnote in Brightman v. Meriweather, 121 Ala. 602, 25 So. 994, where it was said in the opinion that "the burden was on the plaintiff to show the levy of a valid execution on the property"--citing Jackson v. Bain, supra. Very clearly it was intended to say merely that a valid execution must appear, for the court proceeded to take cognizance of the transcript of the record as showing that there was no valid judgment to support the execution.
In Schamagel v. Whitehurst, 103 Ala. 260, 15 So. 611, it was remarked that since the bond and affidavit admitted the levy of the attachment process, it was unnecessary for the plaintiff to prove it. In that case, also, the headnote is misleading in its possible implication that without the introduction in evidence of the bond and affidavit the plaintiff must offer some other evidence of the fact of the levy. That question, however, did not arise and was not decided.
The decision of this court in Weinstein v. Yielding, 167 Ala. 347,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Ferguson
...Bank of America, (Cal. App.) 284 P. 977 (on reargument, McCaffey C. Co. v. Bank of America, 109 Cal.App. 415, 294 P. 45); McDonald v. Stephens, 204 Ala. 359, 85 So. 746); does it conform to the requirements of pleadings as set out in I. C. A., sec. 5-601 et seq., so it cannot be said that a......
-
Monroe County Growers' Exch. v. Harper
...reason that irregularities may be cured by timely amendments; but if the writ is void, it would be open to attack by the claimant. McDonald v. Stephens, supra; Bradford & Sons Bassett, 151 Ala. 520, 44 So. 59. It would also seem to be equally certain that a circuit court is without authorit......
-
Singer v. Alexander City Bank, 5 Div. 83.
... ... mortgage or lien; a further specification thereof being ... unnecessary. Section 10379, Code; McDonald v ... Stephens, 204 Ala. 359, 85 So. 746; Gulf Coast ... Lumber Co. v. Miles, 206 Ala. 429, 90 So. 281. The ... amendment to claimant's affidavit ... ...
-
First Nat. Bank v. Lartigue
...Central Bank & Trust Co. v. Alabama Broom Co., 204 Ala. 410, 85 So. 738; Norwood v. Voorhees, 129 Ala. 314, 29 So. 680; McDonald v. Stephens, 204 Ala. 359, 85 So. 746; Loveman, Joseph & Loeb v. Foster, 227 Ala. 385, So. 170. While charge No. 4 is not altogether an erroneous statement, it ig......