Powell v. Crawford

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtHARALSON, J.
Citation110 Ala. 294,18 So. 302
Decision Date31 July 1895
PartiesPOWELL v. CRAWFORD.

18 So. 302

110 Ala. 294

POWELL
v.
CRAWFORD.

Supreme Court of Alabama

July 31, 1895


Appeal from circuit court, Dale county; J. M. Carmichael, Judge.

Statutory action of detinue by J. R. Crawford against F. A. Powell. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

The defendant pleaded the general issue, and the following special pleas: "Second. For further answer to the complaint, he pleads that the plaintiff claims title to the property sued for by virtue of a mortgage, which he now holds, and that he has or claims no other title or right in and to the property sued for, than that which he claims by virtue of said mortgage; and that plaintiff has never had the possession of the property; and that the mortgage under which the plaintiff claims title and sues to recover, was procured through deceit and fraud, and is void for the fraud practiced by the plaintiff upon the defendant in procuring its execution. That some time near the first of the year 1891, defendant made arrangements with P. L. Burdeshaw to have Burdeshaw furnish him, defendant, supplies to the amount of fifty or seventy-five dollars, during the spring of the year 1891, to enable defendant to make a crop in that year; and it was agreed that defendant should make to Burdeshaw a mortgage on the crop to be grown by defendant in Dale county, Alabama, in the year 1891, to secure the amount to be advanced to him by Burdeshaw as aforesaid, together with an old indebtedness which he then also owed Burdeshaw; that defendant was and in an illiterate man, unable to read or write; that when the arrangements were agreed upon, he and his wife, who was also an illiterate person, unable to read or write, went, as was agreed, to make a mortgage to said Burdeshaw; that Burdeshaw and plaintiff, in whose honesty defendant had confidence, took advantage of the ignorance and illiteracy of defendant and his said wife, and falsely represented to them that the instrument prepared for them to sign was the mortgage to said Burdeshaw, which it had been agreed that defendant should make to Burdeshaw, as aforesaid; that defendant and his wife believed that Burdeshaw and plaintiff had told them the truth about the contents of the paper prepared for them to sign, and not knowing that it was any other than a mortgage and note to Burdeshaw as was agreed, signed it, believing it to be such mortgage to Burdeshaw as was agreed upon; that after the maturity of the note and mortgage thus signed, defendant, for the first time, learned when plaintiff presented it to him for collection, that he had been deceived into making to plaintiff a note and mortgage; and that defendant did not owe plaintiff anything on any account, and would not knowingly have made him a mortgage." "Third. For further answer he pleads that he does not know what the consideration of the said mortgage to plaintiff can be, since he does not owe plaintiff any debt or amount whatever; but, if plaintiff claims as his the said old indebtedness which defendant owed to said P. L. Burdeshaw, at the time he was deceived into executing the said mortgage to plaintiff, defendant then pleads that the said old indebtedness to said Burdeshaw consisted of the several balances left over from year to year...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • Union Indemnity Co. v. Webster, 6 Div. 950
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 25, 1928
    ...if the plea be such as is subject to amendment. Huntsville Knitting Mills v. Butner, 200 Ala. 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 Al......
  • Wefel v. Stillman
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 4, 1907
    ...easily corrected by amendment. Sledge v. Swift, 53 Ala. 114; Brooks v. Continental Ins. Co., 125 Ala. 618, 29 So. 13; Powell v. Crawford, 110 Ala. 294, 18 So. 302; Lindsey v. Morris, 100 Ala. 550, 13 So. 619. The rule laid down in the Case of Brooks, supra, seems to be correct, and that is ......
  • Blanks v. West Point Wholesale Grocery Co., 5 Div. 105.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 26, 1932
    ...the objection must be raised by demurrer." Sledge v. Swift, 53 Ala. 114; Brooks v. Continental Ins. Co., supra; Powell v. Crawford, 110 Ala. 294, 18 So. 302; Lindsay v. Morris, 100 Ala. 550, 13 So. 619; Wefel v. Stillman, 151 Ala. 249, 44 So. 203. The defendant did not test the sufficiency ......
  • McAnally v. Hawkins Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 30, 1896
    ...practice. Lindsay v. Morris, 100 Ala. 550, 13 So. 619; Railroad Co. v. Dusenberry, 94 Ala. 419, 10 So. 274; Powell v. Crawford (Ala.) 18 So. 302. The plea, however, was a good one. It was interposed by the defendant, Catherine McAnally. It put in issue a fact upon which the existence of the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Union Indemnity Co. v. Webster, 6 Div. 950
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 25, 1928
    ...if the plea be such as is subject to amendment. Huntsville Knitting Mills v. Butner, 200 Ala. 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 Al......
  • Wefel v. Stillman
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 4, 1907
    ...easily corrected by amendment. Sledge v. Swift, 53 Ala. 114; Brooks v. Continental Ins. Co., 125 Ala. 618, 29 So. 13; Powell v. Crawford, 110 Ala. 294, 18 So. 302; Lindsey v. Morris, 100 Ala. 550, 13 So. 619. The rule laid down in the Case of Brooks, supra, seems to be correct, and that is ......
  • Blanks v. West Point Wholesale Grocery Co., 5 Div. 105.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 26, 1932
    ...the objection must be raised by demurrer." Sledge v. Swift, 53 Ala. 114; Brooks v. Continental Ins. Co., supra; Powell v. Crawford, 110 Ala. 294, 18 So. 302; Lindsay v. Morris, 100 Ala. 550, 13 So. 619; Wefel v. Stillman, 151 Ala. 249, 44 So. 203. The defendant did not test the sufficiency ......
  • McAnally v. Hawkins Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 30, 1896
    ...practice. Lindsay v. Morris, 100 Ala. 550, 13 So. 619; Railroad Co. v. Dusenberry, 94 Ala. 419, 10 So. 274; Powell v. Crawford (Ala.) 18 So. 302. The plea, however, was a good one. It was interposed by the defendant, Catherine McAnally. It put in issue a fact upon which the existence of the......
  • 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