Tucker v. Pilcher
| Decision Date | 19 April 1917 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 663 |
| Citation | 75 So. 171,199 Ala. 609 |
| Parties | TUCKER et al. v. PILCHER. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chancery Court, Houston County; Oscar S. Lewis Chancellor.
Suit by G.W. Pilcher against T.M. Tucker, individually, and others. From the decree, the named defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Bill by G.W. Pilcher against T.M. Tucker, individually, the Atlantic Compress Company, a corporation, and Young & Hughes, a partnership, seeking foreclosure of a mortgage executed by Tucker to complainant, and a sale of certain cotton to satisfy his lien.
The bill shows the execution of the mortgage on December 24 1914, and that it was given complainant to secure payment for 3,080 pounds of middling cotton, covering all crops of cotton grown by T.M. Tucker or under his direction during the year 1915, on land owned or controlled by him in Houston county Ala. It was further shown that Tucker raised a crop of cotton in 1915 on lands owned or controlled by him on and before the date of the execution of the said mortgage, and that he gathered a portion of the cotton storing it in a warehouse in Dothan until sold; that he sold six bales of the cotton to Young & Hughes, who placed it in possession of the Atlantic Compress Company, and who now own it subject to complainant's rights under said mortgage; that complainant made demand on Young & Hughes and the Atlantic Compress Company for the surrender of the said cotton prior to filing this bill, which demand was refused by each of the respondents; that as the mortgage was executed on December 24, 1914, which was prior to the time of planting the crop in 1915, complainant did not have the legal title, and therefore could not maintain an action of detinue, and a resort to a court of equity was necessary in order to reach and have the cotton sold. The bill then seeks a foreclosure of the mortgage by a sale of the cotton upon the order of the court and a reference to ascertain the amount due; and if the proceeds of the sale are not sufficient to satisfy the mortgage indebtedness, the bill prays for a personal decree to be rendered in favor of complainant against the respondent Tucker for the deficiency. The mortgage is made an exhibit to the bill, and appears to have been filed for record in the probate office October 2, 1915.
Respondent Tucker demurred to the bill for a want of equity as to him and upon the further ground that this respondent had no interest in the cotton, and is therefore improperly joined as a party respondent. The demurrer was overruled.
Subsequently decrees pro confesso were duly entered against each of the respondents, including Tucker. Testimony for the complainant was taken,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Anderson v. Love
- Anderson v. Love
-
Wood v. Barnett
...suit. Lyon v. Powell, supra; Tucker v. Pilcher, 199 Ala. 609, 75 So. 171. If no such decree is sought, he is not a necessary party. Tucker v. Pilcher, supra; Hamilton Clancey, 196 Ala. 194, 72 So. 15; Singleton v. U.S. F. & G. Co., 195 Ala. 506, 511, 70 So. 169; Carwile v. Crump, 165 Ala. 2......
-
First Nat. Bank of Dickinson v. Kling, 6299.
...the bill, so that their claims and equities in the property may be cut off.” 2 Jones on Chattel Mortgages, pp. 554, 555; Tucker v. Pilcher, 199 Ala. 609, 75 So. 171;Bank of Roberts v. Olaveson, 38 Idaho, 223, 221 P. 560;Greither v. Alexander, 15 Iowa, 470;Wuertz v. Braun, 122 App. Div. 433,......