Merrill v. Brantley

• Decision Date: 15 April 1902
• Citation: 133 Ala. 537,31 So. 847
• Parties: MERRILL v. BRANTLEY ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

31 So. 847

133 Ala. 537

MERRILL v. BRANTLEY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 15, 1902

Appeal from circuit court, Crenshaw county.

Action by T. K. Brantley & Co. against William J. Merrill, Sr. From a judgment granting plaintiffs' motion for a new trial after a judgment for defendant, the latter appeals. Affirmed.

This was an action for money had and received, brought by the appellees, T. K. Brantley & Co., a partnership, against the appellant, William J. Merrill, Sr., in which the plaintiffs sought to recover money paid by them to the defendant for the purchase of cotton. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. There were verdict and judgment rendered in favor of the defendant. The plaintiffs made a motion for a new trial, upon the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, and that the plaintiffs had newly discovered evidence, which showed that they did not know that the cotton purchased by them was the cotton upon which they had a mortgage. Upon the hearing of this motion, the court granted the motion and ordered a new trial. From the judgment granting the motion and ordering a new trial, the defendant appeals, and assigns the rendition thereof as error.

C. E Hamilton and J. O. Sentell, for appellant.

Rushton & Powell, for appellees.

SHARPE J.

Plaintiffs held a first mortgage on cotton grown by one Wallace, to secure a debt amounting to more than the value of the cotton. Defendant held a second mortgage on the same cotton taken after plaintiffs' had been duly recorded. After the cotton was gathered, baled, and placed in a warehouse defendant sold it, together with other cotton, to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs now sue to recover back the money paid for the cotton, claiming they purchased under the mistaken belief that defendant owned the cotton, and without knowing it was the same covered by their mortgage. By their purchase plaintiffs obtained no appreciable benefit, since they already had a paramount interest in the cotton, equaling it in value, and defendant parted with nothing except an equity of redemption, worthless because the sum required to redeem would have exceeded the value of the cotton. The money was therefore paid without any substantial consideration, and is subject to be recovered, as it equitably belongs to the plaintiffs, unless they are in the attitude of having paid it voluntarily with notice of the facts, in which case they would be...