Webb v. Dickson
Decision Date | 28 May 1964 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 169 |
Citation | 165 So.2d 103,276 Ala. 553 |
Parties | John WEBB, d/b/a Wilcox Tractor Company, v. Jane S. DICKSON, d/b/a South Alabama Pole and Piling Company. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
L. Y. Sadler, Jr., Camden, for appellant.
John M. Coxwell, Monroeville, for appellee.
Plaintiff-appellee filed suit in the circuit court of Monroe County against defendant-appellant, with one court in trespass and another in trover, to recover damages arising from the repossession by defendant of a tractor which defendant had sold plaintiff. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $3,000.00. From a judgment entered therefor, defendant appeals.
It appears from the undisputed evidence that part of the consideration was to be financed over a period of twenty-four months in monthly installments, each maturing as hereinafter appears.
Plaintiff executed and delivered to defendant-vendor (admittedly acting through her agent) a written instrument in form used by Commercial Credit Equipment Corporation in financing the transaction. We may add that, as indicated by other cases before this Court, it is, in substance, the form commonly used to finance such transactions. Such an instrument, as here, has been defined by this court as a mortgage, although part in the form of a conditional sales contract. American Discount Co. v. Beck, 263 Ala. 470, 83 So.2d 232; Bern v. Rosen, 259 Ala. 292, 66 So.2d 711.
It appears in evidence that plaintiff signed an agreement as follows:
Date above 4-21-61.
As a part of the contract executed by plaintiff there appears as follows:
Transfer and assignment of the above instrument was, on April 24, 1961, made by the vendor to Commercial Credit Equipment Corporation, and, by that company, in writing, reassigned to defendant on November 24, 1961.
It further appears from the evidence without dispute that plaintiff became delinquent in payment of the installments due respectively on October 15 and November 15, 1961, concerning which the Finance Company wrote plaintiff on November 22, 1961, as follows:
'Dear Mrs. Dickson:
'We shall look forward to hearing from you within the next five days and our action will impend your reply.'
Plaintiff testified that on November 25, 1961, she mailed a check dated November 27, 1961, in an amount of $270.20 to cover these delinquent installments.
On that same date, November 25th, defendant testified that he repossessed the tractor. The instrument had been assigned and transferred to him on the preceding day. Therefore, it appears when the check was mailed, according to plaintiff's testimony, on November 25th, the Commercial Finance Investment Corporation, was not the owner of the contract, and was without authority to receive the payment. Later, after the tractor was repossessed, the Finance Company, on December 4th, returned the check to plaintiff.
We held in Ison Finance Company v. Glasgow, 266 Ala. 391, 96 So.2d 737(7), that a subsequent agreement may be made to extend the time of payment of a note, but it must be based on a valuable consideration. Citing Cox v. Mobile & G. R. Co., 37 Ala. 320; David v. Malone, 48 Ala. 428; Scott v. Scruggs...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carn v. Heesung Pmtech Corp.
...property." Bell Aerospace Servs., Inc. v. U.S. Aero Servs., Inc. , 690 F.Supp.2d 1267 (M.D. Ala. 2010) (citing Webb v. Dickson , 276 Ala. 553, 165 So.2d 103, 105 (1964) ). See also Ex parte Anderson , 867 So.2d 1125 (Ala. 2003). "At its core, conversion is 'the wrongful exercise of dominion......
-
Warren v. Ford Motor Credit Co.
...taking or a wrongful detention or interference, or an illegal assumption of ownership, or an illegal use or misuse. Webb v. Dickson, 276 Ala. 553, 165 So.2d 103 (1964); and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Wagnon, 53 Ala.App. 712, 304 So.2d 216 (1974). The gist of the action is......
-
Ellis v. Zuck
...assumption of ownership, or an illegal use or misuser." Jones v. Americar, Inc., 283 Ala. 638, 219 So.2d 893 (1969); Webb v. Dickson, 276 Ala. 553, 165 So.2d 103 (1964); Consolidated Graphite Corp. v. Kelly, 227 Ala. 516, 150 So. 682 (1933). It is well settled that money can be the subject ......
-
Speigle v. Chrysler Credit Corp.
...by use of unlawful force. Unlawful force is the essential element of the action. Cox v. Stuart, 229 Ala. 409, 157 So. 460; Webb v. Dickson, 276 Ala. 553, 165 So.2d 103. Such force may be actual physical force or it may be constructive force. Constructive force in such cases has been defined......