Russell v. Peavy
| Citation | 131 Ala. 563,32 So. 492 |
| Parties | RUSSELL v. PEAVY. [1] |
| Decision Date | 13 February 1902 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from circuit court, Jefferson county; A. A. Coleman, Judge.
Action by Sallie I. Russell against Silas W. Peavy. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Upon the introduction of all the evidence, the plaintiff requested the court to give to the jury the following written charge "If the jury believe the evidence they will find a verdict in favor of the plaintiff." The court refused to give this charge, and to this ruling the plaintiff duly excepted. The plaintiff also duly excepted to the court's giving, at the request of the defendant, the following written charge: "The court charges the jury that if they believe the evidence they will find for the defendant."
Powell & Dickinson and Banks & Selheimer, for appellant.
Jas. E Webb, for appellee.
The appellant brought her action in ejectment against Silas W Peavy, the tenant in possession, to recover a certain lot in the city of Birmingham. Mrs. E. E. McLemore, on her application, was admitted to defend as landlord.
The right of plaintiff to recover is based on the invalidity of a mortgage, executed by plaintiff and her husband, under which defendant claims title, and which plaintiff contends is invalid because given to secure the debt of her husband. The undisputed facts show that James M. Russell, the husband of plaintiff, having seen in a newspaper an advertisement to the effect that Dr. Chas. Wheelan had some money to lend, went to see said Wheelan, and told him he wanted to borrow $1,000 for his own use. Wheelan told him he had some money to lend for Mrs. E. E. McLemore, and asked him what security he could give. Russell replied that he would give a mortgage on a lot on Twelfth avenue and Thirty-Second street. Wheelan told Russell that would be sufficient, and asked him to bring an abstract of the title. Before leaving, Russell told Wheelan that he (Russell) had mortgaged all his own property, and that the lot belonged to his wife. Wheelan said that would be all right if the title was good. Russell had an abstract prepared, and took it to Wheelan, who had an attorney to examine it. Several days afterwards Wheelan told Russell the title was satisfactory, and that he could get the money immediately upon the execution of the mortgage. Wheelan had the mortgage prepared, and gave it to Russell to be executed. Russell carried it to his wife, and told her to sign it. She asked what property he was mortgaging, and he told her it was his North Birmingham property. Russell owned property in North Birmingham at the time, but the property described in the mortgage was not situated in North Birmingham. The wife then signed the mortgage without reading it, although she was able to read, and after its complete execution Russell delivered it to Wheelan and received the money thereon. The money so received he used in paying his individual debts. Mrs. Russell, the plaintiff, did not make any application for the loan, and did not authorize her husband to make any application for her or in her name. She did not know that her husband had made or intended to make an application for a loan. She did not know until after the foreclosure of the mortgage that her property was embraced in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allison v. Crummey
...both the Corbin Banking Company and the Mortgage Company, and judgment of the trial court canceling the mortgage was affirmed. Russell v. Peavy (Ala.) 32 So. 492. ¶34 In the present case the facts upon this point are undisputed, and it is clear from the record that Tarkenton was acting as a......
-
People's Bank v. Barrett
... ... Harrison, 131 Ala. 263, 31 So. 24; ... Landsden v. Bone, 90 Ala. 446, 8 So. 65; Gibson ... v. Clark, 132 Ala. 370, 31 So. 472; Russell v ... Peavy, 131 Ala. 563, 32 So. 492 ... Where, ... however, a portion of the mortgage indebtedness is the joint ... or several ... ...
-
Sherrill v. Federal Land Bank of New Orleans, La.
... ... ejectment for the property. People's Bank v ... Barrett, 219 Ala. 258, 121 So. 910; Russell v ... Peavy, 131 Ala. 563, 32 So. 492; Smith v ... Roney, 182 Ala. 540, 62 So. 753. As has been often ... observed, inadequacy of a remedy at ... ...
-
Spencer v. Spencer
...is not meant to be kept, it is not denied that this circumstance might introduce an element of estoppel.' In the case of Russell v. Peavy, 131 Ala. 563, 32 So. 492, the question was the validity of a married woman's conveyance to secure her husband's debt, which was prohibited by statute. I......