Sadler v. Glenn

Citation190 Miss. 112,199 So. 305
Decision Date23 December 1940
Docket Number34352
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
PartiesSADLER v. GLENN et al

APPEAL from the chancery court of Hinds county, HON. V. J. STRICKER Chancellor.

Bill of interpleader by Arthur M. White against P. W. Sadler, W. S Glenn, and J. A. Roell, doing business as the Standard Millwork & Supply Company, and others. From the decree, P. W Sadler appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

L. Percy Quinn, of Jackson, for appellant.

The master's finding is contrary to the law and evidence of the case.

A holder of an assigned note given for materials furnished in a building may enforce the statutory lien against the building.

Dodd v. Cavett, 133 Miss. 470.

We can perceive no real distinction between the situation presented by the promissory note and the procedure which was followed in the case at bar. In the case at bar, it is true that the parties did not go through the formality of taking assignments from all the laborers when they were paid, nor did they pursue the formality as demonstrated by the example of the promissory note. However, it seems clear that appellant intended to, and did pay the laborers directly. The assignments thereafter procured merely serve to evidence the rights arising from equitable subrogation, which became vested at the time the respective laborers were paid.

The recent case of Planters Lumber Company v. Plumbing Wholesale Company, 181 So. 140, is authority in support of appellant's claim. This case involved a building contract similar to the one in the case at bar. Rubush, the contractor, was unable to finance the job, and the Planters Lbr. Co. agreed to furnish materials and payrolls as they came due. In an attempt to secure these advances, material, and monies, the lumber company procured an assignment from the contractor before the job was begun, and this assignment was held to be void under the provisions of Section 2275 of the Mississippi Code of 1930. However, the court allowed the claim of the lumber company.

We can perceive no real distinction between the lumber company case above and the case at bar. The court in the lumber company case held that the assignment was void, and the court, therefore, necessarily held that the lumber company was subrogated to the rights of the laborers which it paid with monies advanced for that purpose.

We submit that there is a very material distinction between those cases where money, especially in a lump sum, is advanced or loaned to a contractor and placed under his exclusive control and case such as we have here where money is placed in the hands of a contractor weekly to the extent of labor liens or claims.

Equity views with favor the rights arising from subrogation. No writing is necessary to invoke this equitable doctrine, and the formal assignment taken by appellant in the case at bar merely serves to evidence his rights which arose in the first instance from the equitable doctrine of subrogation. These rights arose and became vested when the payrolls were met by appellant.

Bert Crisler, of Jackson, for appellees.

In the case at bar, there was no contract between Glenn and the materialmen, or you might say, the appellees, for the furnishing of this money for labor, but was solely an agreement between the said Glenn and the said appellant about which the said appellees had no interest or concern.

The advancing of money by materialman to contractor, by checks payable to contractor, to pay laborers on payrolls made up by contractor did not constitute furnishing labor on the job so as to entitle materialman to lien, where contract for procuring and paying laborers, to which materialman was not a party, was between contractor and owner.

City Coal & Lbr. Co. v. Gulf Refining Co., 185 So. 250.

In the case here under consideration, as above held by the Supreme Court, the appellant, to the extent of $ 1, 800 was not advancing labor on the job, nor did he have a claim therefor against anyone but the contractor.

The appellant, in his brief, cites the case of the Planters Lumber Company v. Plumbing Wholesale Company, 181 So. 140, which said case is entirely different from the case here under consideration. Under the case so cited, the Planters Lumber Company had an actual agreement with the contractor and the laborers for the furnishing of the payroll money. That case is entirely different from the City Coal and Lumber Company case heretofore cited. In the City Coal and Lumber Company case where there was no such contractural relationship, the court held that there was not an actual furnishing of labor on the job, but in the Planters Lumber Company case that there was such a furnishing because of the fact of said contractural relationship. The appellant further claims that he would be entitled to his money under the doctrine of subrogation. However, there is no bona fide valid claim as far as the said $ 1, 800 is concerned, to which he could be subrogated for the reasons as hereinabove set forth. He could not be subrogated to claims that had ceased to exist before the obtaining of his said assignments.

This case should be decided in accordance with the case of the City Coal and Lumber Company case heretofore set out and should be decided in accordance with the master's report and the decree entered in the lower court.

Under the City Coal and Lumber Company case, there is no question that, under no circumstances could the appellant be subrogated to the claims of the laborers, or the contractor, because none of said laborers had any claims because they had been fully paid. There is no equitable right of subrogation for the appellant in this case.

Argued orally by L. Percy Quinn, for appellant, and by Bert Crisler, for appellees.

OPINION

Ethridge, J.

This is a contest between P. W. Sadler and certain materialmen for moneys paid into court by way of interpleader by Arthur M White, who erected a building in the city of Jackson, and interpleaded the parties to this appeal in court upon the contract price, less...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Truckers Exchange Bank v. Conroy
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • December 23, 1940
  • Rose v. Rather
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • December 23, 1940
  • DeFoe v. Great Southern Nat. Bank, 56728
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • July 29, 1987
    ...justice between the parties without regard to form. Prestridge v. Lazar, 132 Miss. 168, 95 So. 837 ... See also: Sadler v. Glenn, 190 Miss. 112, 199 So. 305 (1940); First National Bank v. Huff, 441 So.2d 1317, 1319 RIGHT OF BENEFICIARY Whenever the question has arisen concerning the right o......
  • Great Am. E & S Ins. Co. v. Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 18, 2012
    ...and good conscience, ought to pay it.” As an equitable doctrine, subrogation is governed by equitable principles. Sadler v. Glenn, 190 Miss. 112, 199 So. 305, 307 (1940). “Subrogation cannot be invoked where it would violate sound public policy, or result in harm to innocent third parties.”......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT