La Rue v. Loveman, Joseph & Loeb

• Decision Date: 28 January 1930
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 537.
• Citation: 127 So. 243,220 Ala. 677
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Parties: LA RUE v. LOVEMAN, JOSEPH & LOEB.

127 So. 243

220 Ala. 677

LA RUE v. LOVEMAN, JOSEPH & LOEB.

6 Div. 537.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 28, 1930

Rehearing Denied April 3, 1930.

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Petition of J. A. La Rue for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decisions of that Court in La Rue v. Loveman, Joseph & Loeb, 127 So. 240.

Writ denied.

See also, La Rue v. Loveman, etc., 127 So. 241 (Ala Sup. 6 Div. 336).

Theodore J. Lamar, of Birmingham, for appellant.

W. H McGowen, of Birmingham, for appellee.

BROWN J.

Prior to the enactment of the statute, now section 6898 of the Code 1923, contracts for the sale of personal property, with condition that the title should remain in the vendor until the purchase money was paid, were valid as to the condition though not in writing, even as against purchasers for value and without notice. Weinstein v. Freyer, 93 Ala. 257, 9 So. 285, 12 L. R. A. 700; 24 R. C. L. 455, § 752.

The purpose and effect of the statute was to make void the condition as to the protected class-originally purchasers for value, subsequent mortgagees, and judgment creditors not having notice of such condition, unless the contract was reduced to writing and recorded. Code of 1896, § 1017; Code 1907, § 3394. The statute as revised and brought forward in the Code of 1923, extends like protection to landlords with a lien acquired without notice of the condition. Code of 1923, § 6898; 24 R. C. L. 465, § 759.

Otherwise there has been no change in the law from what it was prior to the enactment of this statute, and, where a contract of conditional sale is recorded as authorized by the statute, and contains a specified description of the property, or furnishes data sufficient to direct the attention of those reading it "to some source of information beyond the words of the parties to it," such recording saves the condition as to all persons dealing with the property. Stewart v. Clemens (Ala. Sup.) 124 So. 863; Gayle Motor Co. v. Gray-Acree Motor Co., 206 Ala. 586, 90 So. 334; Warrant Warehouse Co. v. Cook, 209 Ala. 60, 95 So. 282; Wood et al. v. West Pratt Coal Co., 146 Ala. 479, 40 So. 959; Harris Motor Company v. Bailey, 219 Ala. 8, 121 So. 33.

The petitioner's contention here is that the conditional sale contract not only does not meet this requirement as to description, but, inasmuch as the contract itself provided that "the property should be kept in premises known as 705, 13th Avenue South," and the vendor had consented to a sale by the conditional vendee to Silliman, who assumed the payment of the balance due on the purchase price, and allowed Silliman to remove the property from the premises designated in the contract, it is estopped to assert its title against petitioner, whose right and lien attached subsequent to such consent and removal. There is considerable force in this contention, but the...