Staley v. Woodruff, 8 Div. 619
| Decision Date | 27 August 1952 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 619 |
| Citation | 60 So.2d 384,257 Ala. 571 |
| Parties | STALEY v. WOODRUFF et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
F. E. Throckmorton, Tuscumbia, and Wayne H. Weaver, Haleyville, for appellant.
McDonnell & Jones, Sheffield, and Patrick B. Harris, Smith & Tompkins and Arthur L. Shaw, Tuscumbia, for appellees.
This appeal is from a decree declaring liens of mechanics and materialmen upon a house and the city lot upon which it is situated and ordering a sale of the property in satisfaction of the liens. A number of complainants joined in the bill, asserting separate claims for items of material and labor furnished to one Cox and going into the construction of the house. It appears that Staley, appellant here, was the record owner of the lot and that he entered into an agreement with Cox for the purchase and sale of the lot for a consideration payable in installments; that Cox made a cash payment and was put in possession; that Staley knew that Cox proposed to build upon the lot and that he would incur indebtedness in that regard and knew of the work of construction as it progressed. It is alleged that at the time of filing the bill there was a balance of $162 due by Cox to Staley on the purchase of the lot and that Staley was entitled to a prior lien for this amount. It is prayed that the liens in favor of complainants be made subordinate to the lien of Staley. There are other averments as to the filing of claims of liens in conformity with the statutes. No demurrer was interposed to the bill as amended, and we are here concerned with no question as to its sufficiency.
Cox suffered a decree pro confesso and did not join in the appeal. The evidence, given orally in open court, tends to show the following:
Under date of August 6, 1948, Staley and Cox executed what is denominated a 'contract or bond for title,' whereby Staley agreed to sell to Cox the lot described for a consideration of $10 cash--receipt of which was acknowledged--and the execution of a promissory note in the amount of $215, payable $10 per week, with interest at six per cent. Upon full payment of the purchase price by Cox, Staley obligated himself to execute a deed to Cox. In event of failure on the part of Cox to meet the payments when due, and being in default for thirty days, it is stipulated that Cox should forfeit his rights under the contract.
Within some three weeks after Cox had made his initial payment and had been put into possession of the lot by Staley, he started work on the house. Staley knew of his purpose to build and came upon the premises and gave some assistance in locating the lines of the property and in laying out the foundations. At a little later time he sold to Cox a set of blueprints to be used in the building of the house. Cox apparently did a considerable amount of the work himself and supplied some of the materials. Beginning in December, 1948, the complainants furnished materials and labor, and continued to do so until February, 1949. After most of the material had been delivered, one of the complainants was engaged to take over or superintend the construction. Apparently the house was completed soon after the furnishing of the last materials in February, 1949. The statements of lien were filed in May, in compliance with the statute, and this suit was instituted in July of 1949.
Cox did not make his payments upon the purchase of the lot in strict conformity with his agreement, but Staley admitted that he waived a forfeiture on this account and manifested an intention to treat the contract as subsisting, stating that he knew Cox was putting all he had into the house. Whether or not Staley knew of the specific arrangements Cox made with the several claimants is in dispute. All of the negotiations for labor and materials were made by and with Cox, and no formal notices of supplying these items were given by the claimants to Staley. The claimants, in each instance, relied upon Cox's interest in the lot and upon his agreement to procure a loan after the house was completed for the purpose of discharging his indebtedness to the complainants. But it is clear that Staley knew of the building as it progressed and knew that Cox proposed to obtain a loan from someone to pay for the building of the house.
There is some evidence that Staley 'foreclosed' the purchase contract and put Cox out of possession. Just how this was accomplished does not appear, but whatever action he took was taken long after the suit had been instituted and after he had been served with summons as a party respondent. It further appears that after the purported foreclosure, Staley sold the lot--not the house--to one Peters, and that Peters took possession of the house, all with full knowledge of the pending litigation.
The trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Douthit
...title and interest of the owner with whom he contracted." Douthit v. Wilks, 480 So.2d 544 (Ala.Civ.App.1984) (quoting Staley v. Woodruff, 257 Ala. 571, 60 So.2d 384 (1952)). That court also correctly held that the lien extended to the right, title, and interest of the Wilkses in the propert......
-
Lyon v. Dunn
...any other meaning to the same term as it appears in § 3253. We hold, as have other jurisdictions, See e. g., Staley v. Woodruff, 257 Ala. 571, 60 So.2d 384 (1952), that for the purposes of determining when § 3253 notice must be given, "Ownership " means ownership at the time the services gi......
-
Douthit v. Wilks
... ... Staley ... v. Woodruff, 257 Ala. 571, 60 So.2d 384 (1952); City ... ...
-
Shepherd Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Bedford
...agent' under Section 37, Title 33, Code of 1940 is a question which we should decide. For example in the case of Staley v. Woodruff et al., 257 Ala. 571, 60 So.2d 384, 386, Staley was the record owner of a lot and he entered into an agreement with Cox for the purchase of the lot for a consi......