W.B. Paterson Lumber Co. v. Patrick, 1 Div. 71

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtANDERSON, C.J.
Citation202 Ala. 363,80 So. 445
PartiesW.B. PATERSON LUMBER CO. v. PATRICK.
Decision Date19 December 1918
Docket Number1 Div. 71

80 So. 445

202 Ala. 363

W.B. PATERSON LUMBER CO.
v.
PATRICK.

1 Div. 71

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 19, 1918


Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Norvell R. Leigh, Jr., Judge.

Suit by Charles T. Ezell, revived after his death by R.W. Patrick, as administrator, and C. Agnew Ezell, against W.B. Paterson, individually, and W.B. Paterson doing business under the name and style of the W.B. Paterson Lumber Company. C. Agnew Ezell stricken as a party plaintiff, and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

The claim is for a certain amount of damages for stumpage of timber and to fix a lien on the lumber cut from the trees, and the claim is also stated as for the breach of an agreement made between plaintiff and defendant that defendant would pay all stumpage then due if plaintiff would permit the defendant to remove said lumber.

The action was begun by C.T. Ezell and Agnew Ezell, but C.T. Ezell having died, the cause was revived in the name of his administrator, and Agnew Ezell was stricken as a party plaintiff. It seems that Carlton L. Williams sold to Paterson the timber in question, said Williams having cut and sawed the lumber from hardwood trees obtained from the land of the said Ezell. The facts and question as to notice to Paterson of Ezell's claim to stumpage sufficiently appear from the opinion. The court charged the jury as follows, orally:

"He says, in the first place, that the defendant, W.B Paterson, purchased this lumber that was manufactured from the timber from the Williams Lumber Company, and that before he purchased it he had notice of the fact that the plaintiff's intestate in this case claimed a lien on this timber. Now, if the plaintiff had reasonably satisfied you of the fact that the defendant did purchase lumber from C.L Williams or the Williams Lumber Company, and that evidence further reasonably satisfies you that the timber was in existence at the time the trade was made for the purchase and that at that time, or at any time prior thereto, the defendant had notice of the fact that Mr. Ezell claimed a lien on the timber, and if you further find that he really did have a lien as defined to you by the court, and if you further find that with such knowledge or notice the defendant purchased that lumber and has appropriated and sold it, then he would be liable to the plaintiff for the reasonable value of that timber, or so much thereof as might be necessary to satisfy the plaintiff for the amount of stumpage that the evidence may show you to be due from Williams to the plaintiff's intestate in this case. That is, gentlemen if at the time the defendant purchased this lumber, and at the time he purchased it, or if at any time prior to the time he purchased it and paid for it, if you find he did pay for it, he had notice that Ezell claimed a lien on it for stumpage, and with such knowledge or notice he purchased this lumber and paid for it and appropriated it to his own use, and sold it, then he would be liable to the plaintiff for the reasonable market value of the lumber so purchased by him from Williams, or so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy Ezell's claim for stumpage, if you find that Williams was owing Ezell anything for stumpage.
"I will make that a little plainer. If he purchased any of the lumber with notice, received then or prior to the time of the purchase, that Mr. Ezell was asserting a lien on it, and if you further find that Mr. Ezell was asserting a lien on it, and if you further find that Mr. Ezell was entitled to a lien, as defined by the court, then the defendant would be liable to the plaintiff for the reasonable market value of the lumber so purchased with such notice, or so much value as may be necessary to satisfy any amount that might be due from Mr. Williams to Mr. Ezell for stumpage. Whether he had such notice or not is a
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Union Indemnity Co. v. Webster, 6 Div. 950
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 25 Octubre 1928
    ...as to any defendant not stricken out," etc. Section 5718, Code; Crawford v. Mills, 202 Ala. 62, 79 So. 456; Patterson v. Patrick, 202 Ala. 363, 80 So. 445; Carswell v. B.F. Kay & Son, 214 Ala. 619, 108 So. 518; Wright v. McCord, 205 Ala. 122, 88 So. 150; Ferguson v. State ex rel. Acton, 215......
  • Coffman v. Folds, 6 Div. 882
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 21 Abril 1927
    ...a jury question of the collective fact of possession (Burkett v. Newell, 212 Ala. 183, 101 So. 836; W.B. Paterson Lumber Co. v. Patrick, 202 Ala. 363, 80 So. 445; Cooper v. Slaughter, 175 Ala. 211, 57 So. 477; Wright v. State, 136 Ala. 139, 34 So. 233). The exemption statute presented for c......
  • Ennis v. Whitaker, 4 Div. 282
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 11 Enero 1968
    ...testify. Prescoat v. Hester, 218 Ala. 348, 118 So. 585; Jackson v. O'Neal, 218 Ala. 328, 118 So. 552; W. B. Paterson Lbr. Co. v. Patrick, 202 Ala. 363, 80 So. The objection to the above question was therefore not well taken. However, it appears that prior to the two above mentioned question......
  • Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Cox, 8 Div. 979.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 31 Octubre 1922
    ...right of amendment is provided by statute. Acts 1915, p. 605; Crawford v. Mills, 202 Ala. 62, 79 So. 456; Patterson Lbr. Co. v. Patrick, 202 Ala. 363, 80 So. 445; Wright v. McCord, 205 Ala. 122, 88 So. 150. Charge B, given at the request of plaintiff, was a fair statement of the rule as to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Union Indemnity Co. v. Webster, 6 Div. 950
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 25 Octubre 1928
    ...as to any defendant not stricken out," etc. Section 5718, Code; Crawford v. Mills, 202 Ala. 62, 79 So. 456; Patterson v. Patrick, 202 Ala. 363, 80 So. 445; Carswell v. B.F. Kay & Son, 214 Ala. 619, 108 So. 518; Wright v. McCord, 205 Ala. 122, 88 So. 150; Ferguson v. State ex rel. Acton, 215......
  • Coffman v. Folds, 6 Div. 882
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 21 Abril 1927
    ...a jury question of the collective fact of possession (Burkett v. Newell, 212 Ala. 183, 101 So. 836; W.B. Paterson Lumber Co. v. Patrick, 202 Ala. 363, 80 So. 445; Cooper v. Slaughter, 175 Ala. 211, 57 So. 477; Wright v. State, 136 Ala. 139, 34 So. 233). The exemption statute presented for c......
  • Ennis v. Whitaker, 4 Div. 282
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 11 Enero 1968
    ...testify. Prescoat v. Hester, 218 Ala. 348, 118 So. 585; Jackson v. O'Neal, 218 Ala. 328, 118 So. 552; W. B. Paterson Lbr. Co. v. Patrick, 202 Ala. 363, 80 So. The objection to the above question was therefore not well taken. However, it appears that prior to the two above mentioned question......
  • Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Cox, 8 Div. 979.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 31 Octubre 1922
    ...right of amendment is provided by statute. Acts 1915, p. 605; Crawford v. Mills, 202 Ala. 62, 79 So. 456; Patterson Lbr. Co. v. Patrick, 202 Ala. 363, 80 So. 445; Wright v. McCord, 205 Ala. 122, 88 So. 150. Charge B, given at the request of plaintiff, was a fair statement of the rule as to ......
  • 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