Phillips v. Hartselle

81 So. 857, 17 Ala. App. 79, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 103
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 8, 1919
Docket8 Div. 606.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 81 So. 857 (Phillips v. Hartselle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Phillips v. Hartselle, 81 So. 857, 17 Ala. App. 79, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 103 (Ala. Ct. App. 1919).

Opinion

BROWN, P. J.

This is an action by the appellant, as the holder of a first mortgage, against a junior mortgagee to recover possession of the mortgaged property, which, before the commencement of the suit, had been voluntarily surrendered to the defendant by the mortgagor. There Is no dispute in the evidence as to the existence of a large balance remaining unpaid on the mortgage debt held by the plaintiff.

[1] It is well settled that the mortgagee is the owner of the chattel covered by a mortgage and is entitled to the possession thereof even before the law day of the mortgage in the absence of an express stipulation, or one arising by reasonable implication from the terms and conditions of the mortgage, reserving in the mortgagor the right to retain possession until default in the payment of the mortgage debt. Hardison v. Plummer, 152 Ala. 619, 44 South. 591; Boswell & Wooley v. Carlisle, Jones & Co., 70 Ala. 244; Bank of Andalusia v. Freeman 200 Ala. 13, 75 South. 325.

[2] There is no express stipulation in the mortgage offered by the plaintiff to sustain his title, reserving to the mortgagor such right, and, assuming that under the terms and conditions of the mortgage such right arises by implication, it is necessarily a right personal to the mortgagor which he cannot pass to another without the consent of the mortgagee. Code 1907, § 7423.

The holder of the first mortgage is without doubt entitled to the possession of the prop; erty as against all persons except the mortgagor.

The plaintiff, on the evidence, was entitled to the affirmative charge.

■Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Montgomery v. Tucker
153 So. 188 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1934)
Manufacturers' Finance Acceptance Corp. v. Woods
132 So. 608 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
81 So. 857, 17 Ala. App. 79, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-v-hartselle-alactapp-1919.