Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Harris

Decision Date18 January 1912
Citation175 Ala. 323,57 So. 854
PartiesSOUTHERN COTTON OIL CO. ET AL. v. HARRIS.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Rehearing Denied Feb. 15, 1912.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Blount County; J. E. Blackwood, Judge.

Action by W. A. Harris against the Southern Cotton Oil Company and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

The action was for wrongfully taking a stock of goods, wares, and merchandise of the plaintiff, located at the storehouse of the plaintiff at Gum Springs, in Blount county, Ala. The following are the pleas discussed in the opinion: (3) "For further answer to said complaint the defendants say that on the 3d day of January, 1908, the defendant the Southern Cotton Oil Company instituted suit in the circuit court of Blount county, Ala., for the sum of $800, evidenced by a note executed by said J. W. Ratliffe, and payable to the said Southern Cotton Oil Company, and in aid of said suit said Southern Cotton Oil Company sued out an attachment out of said circuit court and placed same in the hands of the defendant W. E. Graves, as sheriff of Blount county, Ala and was by him levied upon the property mentioned in said complaint as the property of said J. W. Ratliffe; and plaintiff alleges that said property was, at the time of the levy of said writ of attachment, the property of said J. W Ratliffe, and that the said plaintiff had no title thereto as against the plaintiff in said attachment." (4) "For further answer to said complaint defendants say that on the 3d day of January, 1908, the defendant the Southern Cotton Oil Company instituted suit in the circuit court of Blount county, Ala., against one J. W. Ratliffe, upon a note executed by said Ratliffe to said Southern Cotton Oil Company for the sum of $800, and in aid of said suit procured an attachment to be issued by the clerk of said circuit court which said writ of attachment was levied by the sheriff of Blount county upon the property mentioned in the complaint as the property of said Ratliffe, for the satisfaction of the debt, the foundation of the said suit, and said property was sold by the said W. E. Graves, as the sheriff of Blount county, and the proceeds thereof applied to the satisfaction of the judgment rendered in said court in said suit in favor of the said Southern Cotton Oil Company, and against the said J. W. Ratliffe; and defendants allege that for some time prior to the levy of said attachment, and up to within a few days before said levy, the said J. W. Ratliffe was engaged in the mercantile business in said county, and within a few days before said levy attempted to sell and convey the stock of goods belonging to said Ratliffe to the plaintiff in this case, and the said stock of goods was removed from the storehouse of said Ratliffe to the storehouse of the plaintiff, and there intermingled with other goods in the storehouse of plaintiff for the purpose of destroying their identity, and for the purpose of hindering, delaying, or defrauding the creditors of said Ratliffe; and defendants allege that said attempted sale was void, and passed no title to said property to the said W. A. Harris as against the creditors of the said Ratliffe."

The demurrers were that the plea fails to describe the suit upon which said writ of attachment was issued, fails to show that the writ of attachment was ever returned into court, fails to show that said property was in any way subject to said writ of attachment, fails to describe the process under which said goods were sold with sufficient certainty, purports to be a plea setting up justification under legal process against Ratliffe, and undertakes to allege a fraudulent transfer without stating facts constituting such a fraud.

Plea 8 was filed on August 15, 1911, during the trial of the cause, and is as follows: "Defendant says that, shortly before the levy of the writ of attachment heretofore menioned in pleas of defendant, Warren Ratliffe, for the purpose of hindering, delaying, or defrauding the defendant, who was at that time a creditor of said Ratliffe, with knowledge on the part of plaintiff, transferred to plaintiff a certain stock of goods upon which said writ of attachment was levied, and that the plaintiff in this cause well knew all these facts, and for the purpose of aiding and assisting the said Ratliffe in perpetrating said fraud on the defendant Southern Cotton Oil Company received said goods, and intermingled the same with a certain stock of goods belonging to the plaintiff, and claimed all of said goods as the property of the plaintiff."

In his oral charge to the jury the court said the attachment issued January 3, 1908, is insufficient to sustain the defendant's plea of justification under process, for the reason that it was levied upon the property which had been claimed as exempt by Ratliffe by a claim of exemptions filed in the office of the judge of probate. Therefore the levy in the first instance was wrongful, and constituted a trespass, if nothing else appeared.

The following is charge 1, given at the request of the plaintiff: "If the jury believe from the evidence in this case that at the time plaintiff purchased the goods, the subject of this suit, Warren Ratliffe owed him a bona fide debt of about $1,000, and that plaintiff purchased said stock of goods from the said Ratliffe in satisfaction of said indebtedness, and that the amount of said indebtedness was a fair and adequate price for said goods, and that under said sale the said Ratliffe was to receive no benefit from said transaction, except the cancellation of said indebtedness, then your verdict must be for the plaintiff for the value of the goods at the time of the taking, with interest to date." The disputed question seems to be whether or not the stock of goods levied upon was that purchased by Harris from Ratliffe, and as to Ratliffe's solvency at the time, and Harris' knowledge thereof, and as to whether Harris was attempting to assist Ratliffe in covering up, or whether his purchase was for a bona fide debt owing him by Ratliffe. The other facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.

F. E. St. John and Steiner, Crum & Weil, for appellants.

Ward & Weaver, for appellee.

SIMPSON J.

This action is in trespass, by the appellee against the appellants, for wrongfully taking a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Jefferson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • May 11, 1922
    ... ... injury to plaintiff. Brown v. Johnston Bros., 135 ... Ala. 608, 613, 33 So. 683; Southern Cotton Oil Co. v ... Harris, 175 Ala. 323, 57 So. 854; Birmingham ... Bottling Co. v. Morris, ... ...
  • Southern Elec. Generating Co. v. Lance
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 12, 1959
    ...here. Brown v. Johnston Bros., 135 Ala. 608, 33 So. 683; Gates v. Morton Hardware Co., 146 Ala. 692, 40 So. 509; Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Harris, 175 Ala. 323, 57 So. 854; Kellett v. Cochran, 239 Ala. 313, 194 So. 805; 2 Alabama Digest, Appeal and Error, Assignments of error 2 and 3 are a......
  • Kimbrough v. Alred
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • November 21, 1918
    ... ... Skinner v. So. Gro. Co., 174 ... Ala. 371, 56 So. 916; So. Oil Co. v. Harris, 175 ... Ala. 323, 57 So. 854 ... Much ... stress is made in argument of counsel for ... ...
  • Birmingham Bottling Co. v. Morris
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 23, 1915
    ... ... Bowles, 16 Ala. 62, was overruled by this court in the ... case of Southern Car Company v. Adams, 131 Ala. 147, ... 32 So. 503. While the counts in that case were probably ... he did not know how long he kept the bond out. See ... Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Harris, 175 Ala. 323, 57 ... There ... was no error in allowing the warrant ... ...
  • 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