Alabama MacHinery & Supply Co. v. Baker

Supreme Court of Alabama

Alabama MacHinery & Supply Co. v. Baker

135 So. 171, 223 Ala. 230, 1931 Ala. LEXIS 154

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMay 21, 1931

Docket5 Div. 57.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 135 So. 171 (Alabama MacHinery & Supply Co. v. Baker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alabama MacHinery & Supply Co. v. Baker, 135 So. 171, 223 Ala. 230, 1931 Ala. LEXIS 154 (Ala. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

ANDERSON, C. J.

The only point made by appellant upon this appeal is that the tax title under which Tabor held was invalid because Taber was the president and, in fact, the alter ego of the Flake-town Company, the owner of the land, when sold for taxes and it being his duty to pay the tax or redeem the land, the purchase made by him' from Foshee should have inured to the benefit of his principal, the Flaketown Company. No point is made against the regularity of the tax proceedings or the superiority of the appellee’s title, except for the fact that the purchase by Taber was for the benefit of the Flaketown Company and operated as a payment of the tax or a redemption and had the legal effect of canceling the tax title. It seems to be a well-settled principle that a purchase at a tax sale or redemption from same by a tenant or by one who occupies the position of agent of the owner, tenant for life, etc., is but the payment of the tax or *231 redemption of the property and inures to the benefit of the owner. Bailey v. Campbell, 82 Ala. 342, 2 So. 646; Scott v. Brown, 106 Ala. 604, 17 So. 731. It seems, however, that this rule does not obtain if the relationship is destroyed or expired as by a foreclosure of the mortgage and the expiration of the time for redemption, or by a sale for taxes and expiration of the time within which to redeem. Winsett v. Winsett, 203 Ala. 373, 83 So. 117; Coleman v. Coleman, 173 Ala. 282, 55 So. 827; Sadler v. Jefferson, 143 Ala. 669, 39 So. 380; Farris & McCurdy v. Houston, 74 Ala. 162. The purchase from Foshee by Taber was after the right to redeem from the tax sale had expired and said purchase cannot be therefore treated as a payment or redemption by Taber for the benefit of the Flaketown Company.

The trial court having erred in giving the general charge for the appellant properly granted the motion for a new trial, and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ANDERSON, C. J.

The only point made by appellant upon this appeal is that the tax title under which Tabor held was invalid because Taber was the president and, in fact, the alter ego of the Flake-town Company, the owner of the land, when sold for taxes and it being his duty to pay the tax or redeem the land, the purchase made by him' from Foshee should have inured to the benefit of his principal, the Flaketown Company. No point is made against the regularity of the tax proceedings or the superiority of the appellee’s title, except for the fact that the purchase by Taber was for the benefit of the Flaketown Company and operated as a payment of the tax or a redemption and had the legal effect of canceling the tax title. It seems to be a well-settled principle that a purchase at a tax sale or redemption from same by a tenant or by one who occupies the position of agent of the owner, tenant for life, etc., is but the payment of the tax or *231 redemption of the property and inures to the benefit of the owner. Bailey v. Campbell, 82 Ala. 342, 2 So. 646; Scott v. Brown, 106 Ala. 604, 17 So. 731. It seems, however, that this rule does not obtain if the relationship is destroyed or expired as by a foreclosure of the mortgage and the expiration of the time for redemption, or by a sale for taxes and expiration of the time within which to redeem. Winsett v. Winsett, 203 Ala. 373, 83 So. 117; Coleman v. Coleman, 173 Ala. 282, 55 So. 827; Sadler v. Jefferson, 143 Ala. 669, 39 So. 380; Farris & McCurdy v. Houston, 74 Ala. 162. The purchase from Foshee by Taber was after the right to redeem from the tax sale had expired and said purchase cannot be therefore treated as a payment or redemption by Taber for the benefit of the Flaketown Company.

The trial court having erred in giving the general charge for the appellant properly granted the motion for a new trial, and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 So. 171, 223 Ala. 230, 1931 Ala. LEXIS 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alabama-machinery-supply-co-v-baker-ala-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack