First Avenue Coal & Lumber Co. v. Rimer

133 So. 589, 222 Ala. 545, 1931 Ala. LEXIS 294
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedApril 2, 1931
Docket6 Div. 513.
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 133 So. 589 (First Avenue Coal & Lumber Co. v. Rimer) 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
First Avenue Coal & Lumber Co. v. Rimer, 133 So. 589, 222 Ala. 545, 1931 Ala. LEXIS 294 (Ala. 1931).

Opinions

BOULDIN, J.

The bill was filed by a materialman against the owner to enforce a mechanic’s lien.

Pending the suit, the owners sold and conveyed the property, and the purchaser went into possession. Some ten months later, the purchaser sold and conveyed to a sub-purchaser who went into possession and so remains.

No notice of lis pendens was ever filed by complainant as per statute.

The subvendee, purchasing in good faith for value more than six months after complainant’s demand accrued, had no notice of the pending suit. He was made a party respondent some two years later.

Under this state of facts, the court below decreed complainant’s materialman’s lien was lost as against the present owner. In this the *546 court followed the ease of Reeder v. Cox, 218 Ala. 182, 118 So. 338.

By supplemental brief, appellant strongly challenges the correctness of that decision.

. The full court has considered thé question, and reached the conclusion that there is no sufficient reason to overrule the same.

The further insistence that the lien on the building is not governed by the same rule in this regard is untenable.

While the law does, for the protection of those whose labor and material fyave brought the building into being, sever the same from the land, if need be, in working out priorities, it cannot be said the building is not part of the realty purchased, and subject to the same rule of lis pendens in favor of the bona fide purchaser.

Affirmed.

All the Justices concur except the writer who dissents in part.

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

Related

United States v. Carmichael
433 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (M.D. Alabama, 2006)
Collins v. Stockwell
671 P.2d 415 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1983)
Batson v. Etheridge
195 So. 873 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1940)
Lee v. MacOn County Bank
172 So. 662 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1937)
Fleming v. Kirkland
146 So. 384 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
133 So. 589, 222 Ala. 545, 1931 Ala. LEXIS 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-avenue-coal-lumber-co-v-rimer-ala-1931.