La Rue v. Loveman, Joseph & Loeb

• Decision Date: 25 April 1929
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 336.
• Citation: 220 Ala. 2,127 So. 241
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Parties: LA RUE v. LOVEMAN, JOSEPH & LOEB.

127 So. 241

220 Ala. 2

LA RUE v. LOVEMAN, JOSEPH & LOEB.

6 Div. 336.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 25, 1929

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 decision of that court in La Rue v. Loveman, Joseph & Loeb.

Writ awarded.

Mandate conformed to by Court of Appeals in 127 So. 240.

See also, La Rue v. Loveman, Joseph & Loeb, 127 So. 243.

Theodore J. Lamar, of Birmingham, for appellant.

W. H McGowen, of Birmingham, for appellee.

FOSTER J.

In an action of detinue by a conditional vendor of personal property against a landlord who had a lien on the property and had taken peaceable possession of it after the tenant (purchaser) had abandoned it, the Court of Appeals sustained the right of recovery by the vendor, assuming that there was no sufficient notice of the vendor's conditional sale, either by recording the instrument or otherwise, upon the theory that because the landlord possessed only a lien, which had not ripened into a title, he could not resist the claim of the vendor, because he had no sufficient property right on which to predicate such defense.

We think that in taking this position, the Court of Appeals does not give effect to principles which we think lead to a different result. Unless the conditional sale contract is duly recorded so as to give notice or the landlord acquiring a lien is otherwise notified of such conditional sale section 6898 "strikes down the condition of the sale, and makes it absolute in the tenant" as to such landlord. Isbell-Hallmark Furniture Co. v. Sitz, 217 Ala. 3, 114 So. 677; Id., 217 Ala. 51, 114 So. 678. Assuming that the landlord has no notice of the conditional sale, as to him the title of the tenant became perfect, and the vendor ceased to have any title upon which he could maintain a suit in detinue or otherwise against the landlord. The principle is well established that a plaintiff in detinue must at the time suit is commenced have a general or special property in the article sued for, or have the legal title, and the right of the immediate possession of it. Butler-Kyser Mfg. Co. v. Cent. of Ga. R. Co., 190 Ala. 646, 67 So. 393; Griffith & Warren v. Biggers, 206 Ala. 563, 90 So. 795; Gwin v. Emerald Co., 201 Ala. 384, 78 So. 758; Whatley v. Taylor, 211 Ala. 655, 101 So. 590; Crow v. Beck, 208 Ala. 444, 94 So. 580; Johnson v. New Enterprise, 163 Ala. 463, 50 So. 911. Carrying this principle to its logical conclusion, it results from the decisions of this court that one in rightful possession of personal property with a lien on it, and not estopped to do so, may defeat a recovery in detinue by another who does not show a superior claim with the right to immediate possession. 18 C.J. 1004; Spence v. McMillan, 10 Ala. 583; Bryan v. Smith, 22 Ala. 534; McBrayer v. Dillard, 49 Ala. 174; Gafford v. Stearns, 51 Ala. 434; Seals v....