Chadwick v. Russell

117 Ala. 290
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedNovember 15, 1897
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 117 Ala. 290 (Chadwick v. Russell) 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
Chadwick v. Russell, 117 Ala. 290 (Ala. 1897).

Opinion

McCLELLAN, J.

A plausible, if not a forcible, argument can be made and has been made'in this case for a difference between the registration of a mortgage of realty and one of personalty in respect of constructive notice to sub-purchasers under the mortgagor; the insistence being that the record should be, as it is, notice to all sub-purchasers of real estate, but should not be notice to any except the immediate purchasers of’ personalty ; but we think the argument should be addressed to the legislature and not to the courts. Under the law as written we see no room, for the distinction. Section 1814 of the Code of 1886 (Code of 1896, § 1009), relative to the registration of conveyances of personalty affords no ground upon which to give it a different construction in respect of the parties affected by notice, from that which is established of section 1810 of Code of 1886 (Code of 1896, § 1005), as to the registration of conveyances of real estate in the particular under consideration. The construction so established of section 1810 of Code of 1886 (Code of 1896, § 1005) is that the registration referred to in it is notice to all the world of the lien of the mortgage. — O’Neil v. Seixas, 85 Ala. 80. And so we hold as to the registration referred to in section 1814 of Code of 1886 (Code of 1896, § 1009). Such has been the understanding of the profession and the public, and we do not feel justified in adopting a different view.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Dutton v. Gibson
131 So. 567 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1930)
La Rue v. Loveman, Joseph & Loeb
127 So. 240 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1929)
Forbush v. San Diego Fruit & Produce Co.
266 P. 659 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1928)
Union State Bank of Wapato v. Warner
248 P. 394 (Washington Supreme Court, 1926)
Carrol Mercantile Co. v. Folmar
70 So. 985 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1915)
Argo v. Sylacauga Mercantile Co.
68 So. 534 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1915)
Osage & Oklahoma Co. v. Millard, Co.
1915 OK 6 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Lefkovitz v. Lester
66 So. 894 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1914)
Stickney v. Dunaway & Lambert
53 So. 770 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1910)
Grove v. Great Northern Loan Co.
116 N.W. 345 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1908)
Williams v. Vining
43 So. 744 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1907)
Howard v. Deens
143 Ala. 423 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
117 Ala. 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chadwick-v-russell-ala-1897.