Jacobs v. Swift & Co.

161 So. 232, 230 Ala. 358, 1935 Ala. LEXIS 167
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided May 9, 1935·No. 4 Div. 797.·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

BROWN, Justice.

This is a bill by a contract creditor, whose debt is secured by a chattel mortgage, for discovery and relief. The relief sought is the foreclosure of a chattel mortgage, and to avoid a voluntary conveyance of the real estate described in the bill, made by the debtor to his son and codefendant. The discovery sought is in respect to the location and identity of the property covered by the chattel mortgage.

The bill is single in its purpose — to subject the property of the debtor to the satisfaction of his debt due the complainant.

The demurrers to the bill were not well taken and were properly overruled. Code 1923, §§ 6526, 7342; Rice et al. v. Eiseman Bros. & Co. et al., 122 Ala. 343, 25 So. 214; Douglass Cotton Oil Co. et al. v. Alabama Machinery & Supply Co. et al., 205 Ala. 51, 87 So. -342; Comer v. Lehman, Durr & Co., 87 Ala. 362, 6 So. 264; J. E. Butler & Co. et al. v. A. G. Henry & Co., 202 Ala. 155, 79 So. 630; Hanson v. Luther, 229 Ala. 256, 156 So. 771.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.

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

Jacobs v. Swift & Co., 161 So. 232, 230 Ala. 358, 1935 Ala. LEXIS 167 (Ala. 1935).

161 So. 232 (Jacobs v. Swift & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anderton v. Hiter
188 So. 904 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1939)
City of Carbon Hill v. Merchants Bank & Trust Co.
185 So. 387 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1938)
Jarrett v. Hagedorn
185 So. 401 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1938)
Hackney v. Yarbrough
172 So. 107 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1937)