Warren v. Pitts

Decision Date04 February 1897
PartiesWARREN ET AL. v. PITTS ET AL.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from chancery court, Barbour county; Jere N. Williams Chancellor.

Bill by J. L. Pitts and another against J. R. Warren & Co. and others for the foreclosure of a mortgage. From an interlocutory decree appointing a receiver, defendants appeal. Reversed.

On May 12, 1891, E. C. Anglin and T. W. Anglin executed a mortgage on certain described lands to the American Freehold Land Mortgage Company, to secure a debt presently created, and this mortgage was duly recorded in the probate office of Barbour county on May 15, 1891. On December 2, 1891, J. R Warren & Co. recovered a judgment in the circuit court of Barbour county against E. C. Anglin and T. W. Anglin, a certificate of which judgment was duly filed in the office of the judge of probate on December 11, 1891. On this judgment an execution was issued, and on February 6, 1893, the execution having been levied upon the lands embraced in the mortgage to the mortgage company, said lands were sold by the sheriff under said execution, and J. R. Warren & Co. became the purchasers, and went into the possession of the same. J R. Warren & Co. paid the taxes for the years 1892 and 1893 and in July, 1893, they paid a portion of the debt secured by said mortgage to the mortgage company, and had the note evidencing the obligation duly transferred to them. On January 1, 1894, another portion of the mortgage debt becoming due, and E. C. Anglin and T. W. Anglin failing to pay the same, Warren & Co. paid the amount due on the note to the mortgage company, and had the note transferred to them. On December 10, 1891, E. C. Anglin, T. W. Anglin, and J. D. Anglin executed to J. I. Pitts and J. J. Winn a mortgage on personal property, and also on the lands which were embraced in the mortgage to the American Freehold Land Mortgage Company. This mortgage to Pitts and Winn was not made on a personal consideration, but was made to hold said Pitts and Winn harmless, by reason of their having become, some time prior to the execution of said mortgage, sureties for the Anglins on certain claim and other bonds. This mortgage was duly recorded in the probate office of Barbour county on December 14, 1891. On this state of facts, the bill in this case was filed by said Pitts and Winn, as junior mortgagees, against other persons named above. The prayer of the bill was that J. R. Warren & Co. be enjoined from collecting the rents and income from said lands; that a receiver be appointed to take possession and control of the lands, rent out and collect the rents, and hold the same under the orders of this court; and that an account be stated, and that the lands be sold for the payment of the amounts found to be due the respective parties. The bill admitted the priority of the mortgage of the mortgage company on the lands, and that J. R. Warren & Co. were in possession under their purchase at the sheriff's sale under execution, and as assignees of the notes paid by them to the mortgage company. Upon the submission of the cause on the application for the appointment of a receiver, the chancellor rendered a decree holding that the application should be granted, and ordering the appointment of the receiver. From this decree the respondents appeal, and assign the rendition of said decree as error.

G. L. Comer and S. H. Dent, Jr., for appellants.

A. H. Merrill, for appellees.

BRICKELL C.J.

There are cases in which the appointment of a receiver is almost a matter of course, although fraud or imminent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Moshannon Nat. Bank v. Iron Mountain Ranch Co., 1767
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • January 24, 1933
    ...... 663; Briggs v. Neal, 120 F. 224; Bates F. Proc.,. § 582; Baltimore Bargain House v. St. Clair, (W. Va.) 52 S.E. 660; Warren, et al. v. Pitts,. (Ala.) 21 So. 494; Co. v. Conklin, 126 F. 132;. Ford v. Taylor, 137 F. 149; Moore v. Bank,. (Cal.) 106 F. 574. It is ......
  • Ingram v. Omelet Shoppe, Inc.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • September 12, 1980
    ...adequate remedy or means of accomplishing the desired objects of the judicial proceeding." 34 So.2d at 224, quoting Warren & Co. v. Pitts, 114 Ala. 65, 68, 21 So. 494 (1897). In the present action, there was another adequate remedy available, the issuing of the temporary restraining order. ......
  • Peoples Sav. Bank v. Southern Cotton Oil Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 13, 1944
    ...... v. Lott-Blackshear Commission Co., supra [167 Ala. 541,. 52 So. 653]; Miller v. Lehman, Durr & Co., 87 Ala. 517,. 519, 6 So. 361; Warren et al. v. Pitts et al., 114 Ala. 65,. 21 So. 494.". . . To the. same effect is Garland v. First National Bank, 231. Ala. 597, 165 So. ......
  • Preuit v. Wallace, 8 Div. 974.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 15, 1939
    ...that the plaintiff, asking for a receiver, will ultimately succeed in obtaining the general relief sought for by his suit. Warren v. Pitts, 114 Ala. 65, 21 So. 494; v. Jasper Land Co., 147 Ala. 340, 41 So. 909; 72 Am.St.Rep. 33. Ordinarily a person cannot have a receiver appointed over his ......
  • 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