Williamson v. Mayer

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtHARALSON, J.
Citation117 Ala. 253,23 So. 3
Decision Date05 January 1898
PartiesWILLIAMSON v. MAYER ET AL.

23 So. 3

117 Ala. 253

WILLIAMSON
v.
MAYER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 5, 1898


Appeal from circuit court, Marengo county; C. K. Abrahams, Special Judge.

Action in ejectment by Mayer Bros. against M. M. Williamson. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The defendant pleaded the following special plea: "For further plea in this behalf defendant says that heretofore, to wit, at the fall term, 1893, of this court, plaintiff brought his suit against this defendant, as shown by attached copy of summons and complaint, asked to be taken as a part hereof, to recover possession of the land described in his complaint, at which time this defendant appeared by her attorney and filed the following pleas: 'Now comes the defendant in the above-stated cause, and makes the following pleas: (1) In short and by consent, the general issue. (2) The defendant for further plea in this behalf says that the plaintiff's suit is based upon a certain mortgage, executed by defendant on the 3d day of March, 1892, to secure a debt therein mentioned; that prior to the commencement of this suit, and prior to the foreclosure of said mortgage, the debt was paid and discharged.' And at the _____ term, 189___, of this court, a trial was had on the above pleas, the plaintiff joining issue thereon, and it becoming material, and necessary upon said issue, for the jury to determine whether or not this defendant was really indebted to the plaintiffs upon said mortgage, a verdict was rendered in favor of this defendant, and judgment rendered accordingly, a copy of which judgment entry is hereto attached and asked to be taken as a part of this plea. And defendant avers, that the present suit, the parties, subject-matter and point in issue are the identical parties, subject-matter and point in issue involved in the former, and defendant avers that there is a valid subsisting judgment in her favor, as to this question and matter, and that plaintiffs rely on, in the present suit, in support of their title, the same identical mortgage given by defendant to plaintiffs upon the land in question, and used in the former trial of this cause; and defendant says the question of payment, vel non, of this mortgage debt was decided in her favor under the issue upon which the former trial was had. Wherefore defendant says plaintiffs should not recover in this suit." The plaintiffs moved to strike this plea from the file, which motion was overruled. Thereupon the plaintiffs demurred to this plea of res adjudicata upon the following grounds: "(1) It shows upon its face that said former action was an action in the nature of an action of ejectment, while this action is an action in the nature of an action of ejectment. (2) Because it does not show that the verdict and judgment in said former action were rendered upon the issue of payment of mortgage debt." This demurrer was sustained, and to the ruling of the court the defendant duly excepted. The defendant then pleaded two pleas, the first of which was the general issue, and the second was as follows: "That the plaintiffs' suit is based upon a certain mortgage, executed by defendant to plaintiffs, and that before the commencement of this suit the debt was fully paid and discharged." To the second plea the plaintiffs demurred upon the ground that it fails to show that the plaintiffs sued in this action as mortgagees, or that said mortgage debt was paid before the foreclosure of this mortgage. This demurrer was overruled. Thereupon the plaintiffs filed the following replication: "Now come the plaintiffs, and for a replication to plea No. 2 of defendant, say: That plaintiffs are not suing as mortgagees in this action, but claim title directly by a deed from Wm. Cunninghame, and that said mortgage mentioned in said plea was foreclosed under the power of sale contained therein, and a deed executed to Wm. Cunninghame, the purchaser at said sale on, to wit, 21st day of August, 1893. That Wm. Cunninghame, the purchaser at said sale, executed and conveyed to plaintiffs by good and sufficient deed the premises here sued for, on, to wit, the 28th day of August, 1893, and that this suit was brought after the execution of both of said deeds." The defendant moved to strike this replication from the file, and duly excepted to the court's overruling his motion. The defendant then filed the following rejoinder to the plaintiffs' replication: "And now comes the defendant and for a rejoinder to plaintiffs' replication says, that there was a mortgage executed by defendant to plaintiffs on the land in suit, and that at the sale under foreclosure of said mortgage Wm. Cunninghame was only a nominal purchaser, and that no consideration was paid by him for the purchase of said lands, but that he only bought in said lands for the express purpose of reconveying to Mayer Bros." The plaintiffs moved to strike this rejoinder from the files, upon the ground that it was immaterial, irrelevant, and frivolous, and because it was a departure from the original defense. The court sustained this motion, and to this ruling the defendant duly excepted.

G. W. Westbrook, a juror, testified upon the voir dire that he was first cousin to defendant's son-in-law, and was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • Union Indemnity Co. v. Webster, 6 Div. 950
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 25, 1928
    ...So. 302; Murphy v. Farley, 124 Ala. 279, 27 So. 442; McAnally v. Hawkins Lumber Co., 109 Ala. 397, 19 So. 417; Williamson v. Mayer Bros., 117 Ala. 253, 23 So. 3; [118 So. 798] Ex parte L. & N.R. Co., 211 Ala. 531, 100 So. The distinction between a motion in writing, made part of the ple......
  • Veitch v. Woodward Iron Co., 6 Div. 368
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 10, 1917
    ...Ala. 79, 55 So. 606; Jackson v. Tribble, 156 Ala. 480, 47 So. 310; Johnson v. Wood, 125 Ala. 330, 28 So. 454; Williamson v. Mayer Bros., 117 Ala. 253, 23 So. 3; Harton v. Little, 176 Ala. 267, 57 So. 851. What effect had the recitals in the deed from Mary Veitch to William J. Mims, recorded......
  • Carr v. Moore, 5 Div. 724
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 15, 1919
    ...Southern R.R. Co. v. Cowan, 129 Ala. 577, 586, 29 So. 985; Pritchard v. Fowler, 171 Ala. 662, 667, 55 So. 147; Williamson v. Mayer Bros., 117 Ala. 253, 23 So. 3. Respondents, being called upon to propound their claim and failing to show title, should not recover. Code 1907, § 5444; Pace v. ......
  • Cleveland v. Bateman, No. 1749.
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • November 16, 1915
    ...the power. 4 Enc. of Evidence, 183, 13 Cyc. 611; 27 Cyc. 1463; Knox v. Gibson (1911) 23 Colo. App. 402, 128 Pac. 470; Williamson v. Mayer, 117 Ala. 253, 23 South. 3; Tew v. Henderson, 116 Ala. 545, 23 South. 128; Washington County R. Co. v. Canadian Colored Cotton Mills Co., 104 Me. 527, 72......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • Union Indemnity Co. v. Webster, 6 Div. 950
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 25, 1928
    ...So. 302; Murphy v. Farley, 124 Ala. 279, 27 So. 442; McAnally v. Hawkins Lumber Co., 109 Ala. 397, 19 So. 417; Williamson v. Mayer Bros., 117 Ala. 253, 23 So. 3; [118 So. 798] Ex parte L. & N.R. Co., 211 Ala. 531, 100 So. The distinction between a motion in writing, made part of the pleadin......
  • Veitch v. Woodward Iron Co., 6 Div. 368
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 10, 1917
    ...Ala. 79, 55 So. 606; Jackson v. Tribble, 156 Ala. 480, 47 So. 310; Johnson v. Wood, 125 Ala. 330, 28 So. 454; Williamson v. Mayer Bros., 117 Ala. 253, 23 So. 3; Harton v. Little, 176 Ala. 267, 57 So. 851. What effect had the recitals in the deed from Mary Veitch to William J. Mims, recorded......
  • Carr v. Moore, 5 Div. 724
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 15, 1919
    ...Southern R.R. Co. v. Cowan, 129 Ala. 577, 586, 29 So. 985; Pritchard v. Fowler, 171 Ala. 662, 667, 55 So. 147; Williamson v. Mayer Bros., 117 Ala. 253, 23 So. 3. Respondents, being called upon to propound their claim and failing to show title, should not recover. Code 1907, § 5444; Pace v. ......
  • Cleveland v. Bateman, No. 1749.
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • November 16, 1915
    ...the power. 4 Enc. of Evidence, 183, 13 Cyc. 611; 27 Cyc. 1463; Knox v. Gibson (1911) 23 Colo. App. 402, 128 Pac. 470; Williamson v. Mayer, 117 Ala. 253, 23 South. 3; Tew v. Henderson, 116 Ala. 545, 23 South. 128; Washington County R. Co. v. Canadian Colored Cotton Mills Co., 104 Me. 527, 72......
  • 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