Rountree v. Satterfield
Decision Date | 15 May 1924 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 604. |
Citation | 100 So. 751,211 Ala. 464 |
Parties | ROUNTREE ET AL. v. SATTERFIELD. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 19, 1924.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Morgan County; Osceola Kyle, Judge.
Bill in equity by J. B. Satterfield against Columbus W. Kyle, Martha Kyle, J. H. Holt, Charles Rountree, and the Rountree Lumber Company, to foreclose a mortgage and to recover the value of timber cut from the mortgaged premises. From a decree overruling their demurrer to the bill, Charles Rountree and the Rountree Lumber Company appeal. Affirmed.
Tennis Tidwell, of Albany, for appellants.
Mallory & Mallory, of Selma, and G. O. Chenault and Eyster & Eyster all of Albany, for appellee.
The bill was for foreclosure of a mortgage on land.
The agreement and appearance of counsel bring all necessary parties before the court under General Acts 1911, p. 589 section 2884 of the Code of 1907. L. & N. R. R Co. v. Shikle, 206 Ala. 494, 90 So. 900; Sherrod v. McGruder, 209 Ala. 260, 96 So. 78; New Morgan County B. & L. Ass'n v. Plemmons, 210 Ala. 16, 97 So. 46; Smith v. Collier, 210 Ala. 23, 97 So. 101.
Was the bill as amended, excepting, as it does, defendants Charles Rountree and Rountree Lumber Company from the claim for attorneys' fees, free from the grounds of demurrer assigned by said Charles Rountree and Rountree Lumber Company on their appeal?
The bill was by a mortgagee or an assignee of the mortgagee for foreclosure and discovery and accounting for waste alleged to have been committed by the mortgagor with the other named defendants by cutting and selling timber; that is to say, the Kyles gave the mortgage to Boynton, who transferred to complainant, and after record of the mortgage the Kyles cut and sold the timber to Holt, Rountree, and the Rountree Lumber Company. The averments are:
"Complainant further alleges that a large quantity of timber that was given upon said lands, at the time of the execution of the mortgage, has been cut and removed therefrom, not for ordinary use, but that the same was sold by the mortgagors to respondents J. H. Holt, Charles Rountree, and Rountree Lumber Company, for the amount of several hundred dollars, *** and respondents Charles Rountree, Rountree Lumber Company, and J. H. Holt, after the record of said mortgage, and after the same became the property of complainant, obtained timbers and lumber cut from said land of the value of several hundred dollars, and converted the same to their own use; they, at the time, having actual, or constructive notice of the existence of said mortgage upon said land."
The prayer of the bill contains, among other usual averments and prayer for general relief, the specific prayer:
When the bill is taken most strongly against the pleader, it may be said to seek respective accountings against the three defendants for the several wastes committed and conversions of the timber from the mortgaged lands with notice of the mortgage, and to charge each respective defendant with his or its separate and respective liability as incident to the relief of foreclosure of the mortgage.
In the case of Hitt Lumber Co. v. Cullman Property Co., 189 Ala. 13, 66 So. 720, the bill was to enjoin trespass and for the recovery of damages for cutting timber from the lands of complainant; held that, in seeking injunction to prevent repeated trespasses in the cutting of timber and for damages for the timber already cut by defendant corporation, and by the partnership before its incorporation, and by its individual members, the bill is multifarious, and not cured by section 3095 of the Code. That opinion concluded with the admission that it is often impossible to declare any fixed or abstract rule that will determine in all cases as to whether or not a bill is multifarious. Webb v. Butler, 192 Ala. 287, 68 So. 369, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 815.
In Sims Chancery Practice, § 236, pp. 145, 146, the author says:
See, also, Burford v. Steele, 80 Ala. 147.
The note to the foregoing section, collecting and stating the effect of our decisions, is:
The observation is made that, prior to the enactment of the Code of 1907, and section 3095 thereof, the general rule of multifariousness in this jurisdiction was the same as in England. Pertinent provisions of the statute are that a bill is not multifarious which seeks: (1) Alternative or inconsistent relief growing out of the same subject-matter or (2) founded on the same contract or transaction; or (3) relating to the same property between the same parties. Code 1907, § 3095. Kant v. A. B. & A. R. R. Co., 189 Ala. 48, 66 So. 598, a bill to annul and reform between same parties, held not multifarious; Manegold v. Beavan, 189 Ala. 241, 66 So. 448, to impeach a decree for fraud, multifarious in praying for relief on account of ward's execution of conveyances not within the guardianship bond, and the claim not being an asset of the ward's in the hand of defendant guardian; Wheat v. Wheat, 190 Ala. 461, 67 So. 417, for partition and accounting among cotenants, upheld; Webb v. Butler, 192 Ala. 287, 68 So. 369, bill by trustees of banking partnership and for settlement of the trust, held multifarious as to setting aside conveyances made by a member to his daughter before the formation of the partnership. Ann. Cas. 1916D, 815. In Mathews v. Carroll Merc. Co., 195 Ala. 501, 70 So. 143, bill held not multifarious for seeking cancellation of a single mortgage on lands severally owned; Robinson v. Bice & Sons, 206 Ala. 546, 90 So. 307, bill for specific performance of contract to convey lands and for accounting under a contract for the conversion of timber on lands into lumber, held not rendered multifarious, because prayed that amount due on lumber contract be ascertained and paid complainant, "and because the lumber contract in its original memorandum form purported to stipulate for the advantage of one of the complainants only," the averment being that it was for the benefit of the "complainants"; Merchants' Bank of Mobile v. Zadek, 207 Ala. 84, 91 So. 815, bill for accounting by creditor against trustees of a corporation growing out of composition settlement in bankruptcy, and to declare the notes of the company in custody of trustees paid, etc., held not multifarious; Marsh v. Elba Bank & Trust Co., 207 Ala. 553, 93 So. 604, bill by heirs of deceased mortgagor to enforce equity of redemption on payment of mortgage, to avoid sale under power for fraud against mortgagees and the several parties alleged to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lavretta v. First Nat. Bank
... ... Possession by mortgagee and foreclosure are not ... inconsistent remedies. The rights of a mortgagee after ... default are stated in Rountree et al. v ... Satterfield, 211 Ala. 464, 467, 100 So. 751, 754, as ... "The ... remedy of the mortgagee or her assignee is threefold: ... ...
-
Flagg v. Florence Discount Co.
... ... 567, 105 So. 585; Lunsford et al. v. Marx, 214 Ala ... 37, 106 So. 336; Hodge et al. v. Joy et al., 207 ... Ala. 198, 92 So. 171; Rountree et al. v ... Satterfield, 211 Ala. 464, 100 So. 751; Crawford v ... Chattanooga Sav. Bank, 201 Ala. 282, 78 So. 58; ... Langley v. Andrews, ... ...
-
Memorial Shrines, Inc. v. McConnell
...of the mortgaged premises. (3) To sue on the debt. Roper v. McCook, 7 Ala. 318; Tyson v. Weber, 81 Ala. 470, 2 So. 901; Rountree v. Satterfield, 211 Ala. 464, 100 So. 751; Lavretta v. First National Bank of Mobile, 235 Ala. 104, 178 So. 3; Wood v. Barnett, 208 Ala. 295, 94 So. Equity Rules ......
-
Craig v. Craig
... ... to do justice, and not by halves." Ford v ... Borders, 200 Ala. 70, 75 So. 398; Rountree v ... Satterfield, 211 Ala. 464, 100 So. 751. We are clear to ... the view that under our present statute (section 6526, Code ... of 1923) the ... ...