Farmers' Union Warehouse Co. v. Barnett Bros.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Farmers' Union Warehouse Co. v. Barnett Bros.

118 So. 286, 218 Ala. 165, 1928 Ala. LEXIS 225

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedOctober 4, 1928

Docket8 Div. 60.

StatusPublished

This text of 118 So. 286 (Farmers' Union Warehouse Co. v. Barnett Bros.) 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

Farmers' Union Warehouse Co. v. Barnett Bros., 118 So. 286, 218 Ala. 165, 1928 Ala. LEXIS 225 (Ala. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

ANDERSON, C. J.

We agree with what is said in the opinion of the Court of Appeals as to the burden of proof and the result of the holding upon the facts there set forth, and the writ is denied. In order, however, .to guard against any misleading tendencies of the said opinion upon another trial of this cause, we do not mean to hold that, notwithstanding one mortgage was recorded on February 5th, and the other was taken on. the same day, the plaintiff could not meet the requirement of proving notice, by showing that their mortgage was filed some time or hour of the day anterior .to the hour that the Roberts Luther Company mortgage was taken. In other words, if the plaintiffs’ mortgage was filed for record before the Roberts Luther Company’s mortgage was taken, the latter would be chargeable with notice, although their mortgage was taken on the day the plaintiffs’ mortgage was filed.

Writ denied.

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.

We agree with what is said in the opinion of the Court of Appeals as to the burden of proof and the result of the holding upon the facts there set forth, and the writ is denied. In order, however, .to guard against any misleading tendencies of the said opinion upon another trial of this cause, we do not mean to hold that, notwithstanding one mortgage was recorded on February 5th, and the other was taken on. the same day, the plaintiff could not meet the requirement of proving notice, by showing that their mortgage was filed some time or hour of the day anterior .to the hour that the Roberts Luther Company mortgage was taken. In other words, if the plaintiffs’ mortgage was filed for record before the Roberts Luther Company’s mortgage was taken, the latter would be chargeable with notice, although their mortgage was taken on the day the plaintiffs’ mortgage was filed.

Writ denied.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 So. 286, 218 Ala. 165, 1928 Ala. LEXIS 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farmers-union-warehouse-co-v-barnett-bros-ala-1928.