Kalmia Realty & Ins. v. Hopkins

141 So. 903, 163 Miss. 556, 1932 Miss. LEXIS 73
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedMay 30, 1932
DocketNo. 30011.
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 141 So. 903 (Kalmia Realty & Ins. v. Hopkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kalmia Realty & Ins. v. Hopkins, 141 So. 903, 163 Miss. 556, 1932 Miss. LEXIS 73 (Mich. 1932).

Opinion

Cook, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellee, John L. Hopkins, filed a bill of complaint in the chancery court of Newton county, Mississippi, against the Kalmia Realty & Insurance Company, W. S. Taylor, and A. C. Graham, sheriff, praying for the issuance of an injunction prohibiting the appellants from *563 selling or attempting to subject certain property to the supposed lien of a certain judgment in favor of the appellants Kalmia Realty & Insurance Company and W. S. Taylor, and against S. D. Russell and A. S>. McClendon. A temporary injunction was issued and served on the appellants, and thereafter they interposed a demurrer to the bill of complaint, which was overruled. Thereupon they answered the bill, and upon final hearing on the original bill, answer, and proof, a decree was entered making the temporary injunction perpetual, and awarding the appellee an attorney’s fee of five hundred dollars as damages for the wrongful, willful, and malicious acts of the appellants in causing the levy of an execution on the property described in the bill of complaint, and from this decree this appeal was prosecuted.

From the pleadings and proof it appears that at the August, 1929, term of the circuit court of Newton county, the appellants Kalmia Realty & Insurance Company and W. S. Taylor, secured a judgment against S. D. Russell and A. S. McClendon in the sum of five thousand five hundred dollars, with eight per cent interest from February 11, 1927, which judgment was not enrolled in the circuit clerk’s office until December 20, 1929, more than four months after the adjournment of the August term of the said circuit court. On the 30th day of November, 1929, after the rendition of said judgment, but before the enrollment thereof, S. D. Russell, one of the judgment debtors named above, for a stated consideration of twenty thousand dollars in cash, executed and delivered to the appellee a warranty deed conveying to him the property described in the bill of complaint. This deed was executed by S. D. Russell and his wife on the 30th day of November, 1929, and was filed for record in the office of the clerk of the chancery court of Newton county on the 3d day of December, 1929. Thereafter one of the attorneys for the judgment creditors named above examined the records of the chancery clerk’s office of said *564 county, and found the aforesaid deed conveying the said property to appellee, and on the 30th day of March, 1931, he directed the clerk of the circuit court to issue an execution on the said enrolled judgment, and, under the direction of said attorney, the sheriff of the county levied on the property theretofore conveyed to the appellee by Russell, and advertised the same for sale under the said execution. Prior to the date fixed for the sale of said property under the execution, the appellee filed the bill of complaint herein, praying for the issuance of a temporary injunction enjoining the sale, and for damages for the wrongful, willful, and malicious levy of the execution.

The assignments of error are stated in varying language under numerous subheads, but for the purpose of. this decision they may be combined into two general assignments: First, that the court erred in rendering a decree in favor of appellee making the injunction perpetual; and, second, the court erred in awarding the appellee attorney’s fees as damages.

The first assignment of error, as stated above, involves the consideration and construction of sections 610 and 611, Code 1930. Omitting the form of the prescribed caption of the pages of the judgment roll, section 610, Code 1930, reads as follows: “The clerk of the circuit court shall procure and keep in his office one or more books, to be styled ‘The Judgment Roll,’ which books shall be appropriately divided under the several letters of the alphabet, and on each page shall be placed the following caption: [Omit caption.] And the clerk shall, within twenty days after the adjournment of each term of the court, enroll all final judgments rendered at said term, in the order in which they were entered on the minutes, by entering on the judgment roll, under the proper letter or letters of the alphabet, the names of each and every defendant to said judgment, the amount of such judgment, the date of its rendition, the county and the court *565 in which rendered, the date of enrollment, and the names of the plaintiff or plaintiffs. When any judgment shall be satisfied, the clerk shall so enter under the proper heading, and subscribe the entry.”

Section fill, Code 1930, reads as follows: “A judgment so enrolled shall be a lien upon and bind all the property of the defendant within the county where so enrolled, from the rendition thereof, and shall have priority according to the order of such enrollment, in favor of the judgment creditor, his representatives or assigns, against the judgment debtor, and all persons claiming the property under him after the rendition of the judgment; and a judgment shall not be a lien on any property of the defendant thereto unless the same be enrolled; but in counties having two judicial districts a judgment shall operate as a lien only in the district or districts in which it is enrolled.”

In the case of Johnson v. Cole Mfg. Co., 144 Miss. 482, 110 So. 428, 429, it was held that “these sections give no lien until the judgment is enrolled; that it is the enrollment of the judgment that creates the lien,” and this is but a restatement of the express provision of section 611, Code 1930, that “a judgment shall not be a lien on any property of the defendant thereto unless the same be enrolled.” This section provides, however, that when a judgment is so enrolled, that is, within twenty days after the adjournment of the court at which it was rendered, it “shall be a lien upon and bind all the property of the defendant within the county where so enrolled, from the rendition thereof, and shall have priority according to the order of such enrollment, in favor of the judgment creditor, his representatives or assigns, against the judgment debtor, and all persons claiming the property under him after the rendition of the judgment.” But it is only when enrolled within the time allowed to the clerk for enrolling judgments rendered at any term *566 of court, that a judgment lien relates hack to the date of the rendition thereof.

A judgment enrolled after the expiration of the time within which the clerk is required by section 610, Code 1930, to enroll judgments rendered at any term of court, creates a lien only from the date of enrollment, and does not affect the rights of intervening or prior bona fide purchasers. In the case at bar the judgment was not enrolled until some time after the appellee acquired the property by purchase and had placed his deed of record. It is admitted that the appellee caused the title to the lands to be investigated, and was advised that the record showed that the title was vested in the proposed vendor, free of all liens except a deed of trust in favor of the First National Bank of Meridian. The record shows that the appellee was a bona fide purchaser for value of the property involved long before the enrollment of the judgment, and consequently this property was not subject to levy and sale under an execution based on the judgment.

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

Related

TXG Intrastate Pipeline Co. v. Grossnickle
716 So. 2d 991 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1997)
Murdock ex rel. Smallman v. AT & T Technologies, Inc.
663 F. Supp. 15 (S.D. Mississippi, 1987)
Grisham v. Hinton
490 So. 2d 1201 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1986)
Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Crenshaw
483 So. 2d 254 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1985)
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Miss. v. Campbell
466 So. 2d 833 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1984)
Home Telephone Company v. Darley
355 F. Supp. 992 (N.D. Mississippi, 1973)
Equity Services Co. v. Hamilton
257 So. 2d 201 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1972)
McPhillips Construction Co. v. Carter-Murphy Construction Co.
227 So. 2d 302 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1969)
Herrington v. Heidelberg
141 So. 2d 717 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1962)
City of Laurel, Miss. v. Bush, Et Ux.
120 So. 2d 149 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1960)
Wilborn v. BALFOUR
67 So. 2d 857 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1953)
State ex rel. Brooks v. Wynn
56 So. 2d 824 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1952)
Ouzts v. Carroll
199 So. 76 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1940)
Cooper v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
188 So. 6 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
141 So. 903, 163 Miss. 556, 1932 Miss. LEXIS 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kalmia-realty-ins-v-hopkins-miss-1932.