Pryor Motor Co. v. Hartsfield

• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SOMERVILLE, J.
• Citation: Pryor Motor Co. v. Hartsfield, 207 Ala. 646, 93 So. 524 (Ala. 1922)
• Decision Date: 08 June 1922
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 533.
• Parties: PRYOR MOTOR CO. v. HARTSFIELD, SHERRIFF.

93 So. 524

207 Ala. 646

PRYOR MOTOR CO. v. HARTSFIELD, SHERRIFF.

6 Div. 533.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 8, 1922

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J. B. Aird, Judge.

Bill by the Pryor Motor Company for injunction against J. C Hartsfield, as Sheriff. From a decree dissolving temporary injunction, complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Clarence Mullins, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Burgin & Jenkins, of Birmingham, for appellee.

SOMERVILLE J.

The theory of the bill of complaint is that complainant is entitled to have the automobile, in which he has an interest to the extent of his lien for unpaid purchase money, brought before the Jefferson county circuit court in equity by bill for condemnation under the laws of the state, and therefore that he is entitled to prevent its delivery to the federal authorities for proceedings under the federal laws.

The grounds upon which this asserted right is based are: (1) That his lien cannot be asserted under federal laws, if the car should be delivered to the federal authorities, as threatened, the lien would be lost; (2) the state would be deprived of its share of the proceeds, if the car should be condemned and sold, as would also the officers who seized it (3) that he has a right to compel the sheriff to dispose of the car according to the mandate of the state laws for such cases provided, both as a claimant of the property and as a citizen and taxpayer of Jefferson county.

We think the bill is clearly without equity, in whatever aspect it may be considered. As a bill to protect a property interest in the automobile, it is without equity because courts of chancery do not intervene for that purpose where there are no special circumstances to justify it. The automobile is ordinary personal property, and if the sheriff should either retain it in his custody or dispose of it contrary to law, to the injury of complainant, complainant would have a full, complete, and adequate remedy at law for the recovery of any damages to which he might be entitled. Aderholt v. Smith, 83 Ala. 486, 3 So. 794; Torbert v. McFarland, 172 Ala. 117, 55 So. 311. In such a case equity will not interfere. Friedman v. Fraser, 157 Ala. 191, 47 So. 320; Gulf Compress Co. v. Harris, 158 Ala. 343, 48 So. 477, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 399; 22 Cyc. 816, B. note 52. This does not deny the jurisdiction of equity for the enforcement of liens as against the lienor or his privies, for this is in no sense a bill for the enforcement of a lien.

But even if complaint were otherwise entitled to the injunctive relief sought for the protection of his asserted claim, the equity of the bill is fatally defective, in the absence of an allegation showing that complainant was not guilty of such negligence or fault with respect to the unlawful use of the car as would work a forfeiture of his rights therein; and the bill contains no such showing. In placing this burden of proof on a claimant in a condemnation proceeding under our prohibition laws, the statute in effect...