Staley v. International Agr. Corporation

Decision Date22 February 1940
Docket Number8 Div. 984.
PartiesSTALEY v. INTERNATIONAL AGR. CORPORATION.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Colbert County; Chas. P. Almon, Judge.

Suit in equity by the International Agricultural Corporation against Ed A. Staley, as executor of the last will and testament of Lewis Gusmus, deceased, and another, to recover the proceeds of collections of certain accounts and for other relief. From a decree for plaintiff, the named defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

F. E Throckmorton, of Tuscumbia, for appellant.

Bradshaw & Barnett, of Florence, for appellee.

KNIGHT Justice.

This litigation is between the International Agricultural Corporation and Ed A. Staley, as executor of the last will and testament of Lewis Gusmus, deceased.

It appears that Lewis Gusmus, now deceased, died in July, 1934 and his will was probated in the Probate Court of Colbert County on August 11, 1934. Thereafter, the administration of the estate was removed from the probate court to the circuit court of said county, and that the administration of said estate was pending in the latter court at the time the petition in this cause was filed.

The appellee-petitioner avers in his petition that it had entered into a contract with the said Lewis Gusmus for the sale of fertilizers in Colbert County; that said contract was in force during the year 1934, and that said Gusmus in the year 1934, and prior to his death, sold fertilizer for the petitioner to the parties, and in amounts, shown by an exhibit to the petition.

It is averred that by the terms of said contract, which is made an exhibit to the petition, that the accounts representing the sale of fertilizer to the named purchasers were the property of the petitioner, and that said Gusmus by his contract obligated himself to collect the accounts for complainant "and to keep the proceeds therefrom separate and distinct and to promptly remit the same to complainant." That Gusmus "guaranteed the payment of the accounts by the execution of his mortgage note, which is dated June 30, 1934, and is for the sum of $1,117.71, payable to complainant, and due on the 1st day of October, 1934."

It appears that by this "mortgage note" the said Gusmus, to secure the payment of the note, conveyed to the petitioner his entire crop of "agricultural products" grown and raised by him, and "all his right, title and interest in crops grown by tenants under him or cotenants with him," during the year 1934 in Colbert County, Alabama.

It is then charged in the petition "that Ed A. Staley, as executor of the estate of Lewis Gusmus, deceased, had knowledge of these property rights of the complainant, and had collected from said debtors the amount shown by the statement hereto attached and made a part hereof as Exhibit 'B', and that he has intermingled the proceeds of complainant's fertilizer accounts with the proceeds of the other accounts belonging to the estate of said Lewis Gusmus, deceased, which has been deposited by him in the account of the estate of Lewis Gusmus, deceased, in the Sheffield National Bank, and which is shown by his statement of his account filed in the Probate Court of Colbert County, Alabama, February 26, 1935, covering the period from August 11, 1934, to February 11, 1935."

The petition then prays that the accounts and collection thereon be decreed to be the property of petitioner (styled complainant); that "they be separated from the other monies and assets" of said estate; that it be decreed that the petitioner has "a good and valid mortgage upon the crops described in the bill of complaint and that its rights as to said crops are superior and that its rights to the proceeds of said crops are superior to the rights of other creditors of said estate." Petitioner prays for reference to register to ascertain the amount the said estate is indebted to this complainant on its said claim; that it be ascertained what amount the said Ed A. Staley, as such executor, has collected from "each of the debtors herein described;" that the register ascertain and report the amount of the proceeds collected from the crops upon which petitioner had a mortgage. And finally, it is prayed that the said executor be required to pay to the petitioner the proceeds of the collections of all the fertilizer accounts collected by him and belonging to the petitioner, with interest, and that he shall also be required to pay to the petitioner, from the proceeds of his collections from the crops upon which petitioner had a mortgage, such an amount as is sufficient to pay petitioner's claim in full, etc.

The said executor and the surety on his bond, the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, are made parties respondent to said petition. Each filed answers, denying, in effect, the allegations of the petition upon which petitioner bases his prayer for relief.

Each of the respondents also demurred to the petition, but these demurrers were overruled by the court.

On submission "for final decree upon the pleadings and proof as noted by the register," the court decreed that the complainant, the International Agricultural Corporation, was entitled to the relief prayed; that the money collected from the accounts listed in the decree was, and is, the property of the International Agricultural Corporation; that said monies so collected by the executor be separated from the other assets of said estate; that the said International Agricultural Corporation had a good and valid mortgage on the crops of the tenants of said Gusmus, deceased, and is entitled to the money collected from said tenants for the satisfaction of its claim against said estate.

It was then by said decree referred to the register to ascertain The amount due on the petitioner's said claim; the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • August 17, 1972
    ...which no appeal was timely perfected, which final decree settled the matters about which the assignments complain. Staley v. International Agr. Corp., 239 Ala. 98, 194 So. 168; Hoffman v. Jordan, 263 Ala. 23, 81 So.2d 546; Moody v. Myers, 268 Ala. 177, 105 So.2d Appellant F.D.I.C. relies up......
  • Moorer v. Chastang
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • May 9, 1946
    ... ... appeal taken from the decree of July 30, 1945. Staley v ... International Agr. Corp., 239 Ala. 98, 194 So. 168; ... Williams ... ...
  • Selman v. Bryant
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 25, 1954
    ...this court. Lehman v. Levy, 69 Ala. 48(4); Lavretta v. First National Bank of Mobile, 238 Ala. 265, 189 So. 881; Staley v. International Agr. Corp., 239 Ala. 98, 194 So. 168; Vick v. Bishop, 252 Ala. 250, 40 So.2d 845. One of appellant's arguments is addressed to the failure of the register......
  • Moody v. Myers
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • August 28, 1958
    ...So.2d 75; Carter v. Mitchell, 225 Ala. 287, 142 So. 514; O'Rear v. O'Rear, 227 Ala. 403, 150 So. 502.' In Staley v. International Agr. Corporation, 239 Ala. 98, 101, 194 So. 168, 171, a 'final' decree was rendered on August 30, 1938. That decree provided for a reference to the register. Ano......
  • 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