Priebe v. Farmers' Union Warehouse Co.

• Decision Date: 28 February 1935
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 270.
• Citation: 159 So. 694,230 Ala. 73
• Parties: PRIEBE et al. v. FARMERS' UNION WAREHOUSE CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

159 So. 694

230 Ala. 73

PRIEBE et al. v. FARMERS' UNION WAREHOUSE CO.

7 Div. 270.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 28, 1935

Appeal from Circuit Court, Talladega County; W. B. Merrill, Judge.

Bill in equity by Farmers' Union Warehouse Company against Amelia Priebe and Ida Priebe. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill, respondents appeal.

Reversed rendered, and remanded.

Chas F. Douglass, of Anniston, for appellants.

John D Bibb and J. W. Hemphill, both of Anniston, for appellee.

ANDERSON Chief Justice.

The appellee warehouse, when sued in detinue for the cotton having failed, under the statute, to suggest Ida Priebe, to whom the cotton receipts were issued as owner or claimant of the cotton, must assume the burden here of averring and proving that the plaintiff, who recovered in the detinue action, had a title superior to Ida Priebe's. Farmers' Union Warehouse Co. v. Barnett Bros., 223 Ala. 435, 137 So. 176. We think the present bill of complaint meets this requirement. While it charges that the warehouse receipts were issued to Ida Priebe, it also charges that the cotton in question was grown by McConathy and Hubbard on land rented to them by Amelia Priebe, and that the cotton was the property of Amelia Priebe and not the property of Ida Priebe. The bill also charges that the plaintiff, in the action of detinue, held a mortgage on the cotton given him by Amelia Priebe and McConathy and Hubbard, the tenants of the said Amelia Priebe.

We think, however, that the bill of complaint is nothing more than a substitute for an action of detinue, and that the facts set out, as well as the relief sought, disclose a plain and adequate remedy at law. In other words, it charges that Ida and Amelia Priebe still have possession of the cotton receipts and simply seeks a transfer of same to this complainant. It is well settled that a court of equity has no jurisdiction to take property from the possession of one party and put it in the possession of another. Yellow Pine Export Co. v. Sutherland-Innis Co., 141 Ala. 664, 37 So. 922; Mobile County et al. v. Knapp, 200 Ala. 114, 75 So. 881; Woodstock Operating Corp'n v. Quinn, 201 Ala. 681, 79 So. 253.

If the respondents are in possession of the receipts as averred, the complainant should recover same in an action of detinue, and if not in possession, we do not see how a court of equity can require a surrender of same to the complainant or...