Glover v. McGilvray

63 Ala. 508
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedDecember 15, 1879
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 63 Ala. 508 (Glover v. McGilvray) 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
Glover v. McGilvray, 63 Ala. 508 (Ala. 1879).

Opinion

BEICKELL, C. J.

As between the parties, a mortgage of ■chattels may be created by parol, and will be valid. No special words' are necessary to its creation. It is enough that the transaction clearly indicates an intention and agreement that the chattel shall stand as a security for a debt. Morrow v. Turney, 35 Ala. 131. Whether it was part of the contract of sale, or a subsequent agreement, that the defendant should have a mortgage on the mule, and that the plaintiff would return it to him, if the note for the purchase-money was not paid when due, a mortgage was created, and the defendant had the right to the possession of the mule on the failure of the plaintiff to pay the debt. It was not an agreement to give a mortgage in the future, the parties intended, but a present security, to the operation of which, no other or further act was necessary.

Though a note in writing was given for the purchase-money, not expressing that there was a security for its payment, the oral evidence of the mortgage was not inconsistent with, or repugnant to it. Contracts may rest partly in writing, and partly in parol; and when but a part of the contract is reduced, or intended to be reduced to writing, the independent part, not incorporated in the writing, may be proved by parol. — 2 Whart. Ev. § 1015. Besides, the evidence tended to show that the mortgage was created subsequent to the giving of the note, and was a separate contract. The parties could by parol modify the contract, and such modification needs no new consideration to support it. — Thomason v. Dill, 30 Ala. 444.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment must be affirmed-.'

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

Related

Barth v. Ely
278 P. 1002 (Montana Supreme Court, 1929)
Oden v. Vaughn
85 So. 779 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1920)
Russell & Co. S. en C. v. Henna
10 P.R. Fed. 484 (D. Puerto Rico, 1918)
Davidson v. T. L. Farrow Mercantile Co.
68 So. 602 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1915)
Bank of Florala v. Smith
66 So. 832 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1914)
Galbraith v. First State Bank & Trust Co.
133 S.W. 300 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1910)
Crews v. Harlan
82 S.W. 656 (Texas Supreme Court, 1905)
Frick v. Fritz
88 N.W. 961 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1902)
Central Trust Co. v. Carter
78 F. 225 (Fifth Circuit, 1896)
Jackson, Morris & Co. v. Rutherford
73 Ala. 155 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1882)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 Ala. 508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glover-v-mcgilvray-ala-1879.