Jordan v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway

131 Ala. 219
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided November 15, 1901·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

SHARPE, J.

A first requisite to the presentation of a cause of action on the theory of this complaint is that it should appear that plaintiff had some property right in or a lien upon the property alleged to have been dealt with by the defendant. To be brought in subjection to the lien of a registered judgment, property must not only belong to the defendant but it must be situated in the county of registration.- — Code, § 1921. And an unlevied. execution can create a lien only on property in the county where it is received by the officer authorized to execute it. — 'Code, § 1892. The complaint does not aver the property referred to was ever in Marshall county nor does it aver the existence of a lien even by way -of conclusion. This want is not supplied by the averment that the lien created, by law in favor of plaintiff cannot be enforced, for there the lien is but improperly assumed to have arisen from the facts elsewhere averred. Without showing by the complaint a cause of action plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and the court was authorized to render judgment for the defendant regardless of whether objection was taken by demurrer. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Williams, 113 Ala. 402.

Affirmed.

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

Jordan v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway, 131 Ala. 219 (Ala. 1901).

131 Ala. 219 (Jordan v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Henry v. Milner
85 So. 500 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1920)
Butler Cotton Oil Co. v. Brooks
85 So. 778 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1920)
Hardy v. Glass
84 So. 569 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1919)
Manchuria S. S. Co. v. Harry G. G. Donald & Co.
77 So. 12 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1917)