Reynolds v. Ivey

Alabama Court of Appeals

Reynolds v. Ivey

89 So. 95, 18 Ala. App. 113, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 95

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 12, 1921

Docket4 DIV. 685.

StatusPublished

This text of 89 So. 95 (Reynolds v. Ivey) 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

Reynolds v. Ivey, 89 So. 95, 18 Ala. App. 113, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 95 (Ala. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

At the November term, ^,919, plaintiff obtained a judgment against Mack Ivey, defendant in execution, for §440.-88. Execution was regularly issued and levy was made on one mule and certain produce raised by defendant, Mack Ivey, on a farm cultivated by him and bis family during the year 1919. Claim was interposed to the property by Ed Ivey, son of defendant in execution; the basis of bis claim being that in the fall of 1918 he had turned over certain farm produce to claimant’s mother, consisting of corn, peanuts, sugar cane, and velvet beans, and during 1919 at different times be bad sent to bis mother various amounts of money, aggregating about §90, and this produce and. money was used by the defendant and bis family while making the crop of 1919.

The land was rented by defendant in execution and tended by him and his family. The property was in the possession/ of Mack Ivey when levied on by the sheriff under the execution. This state of facts does not constitute a lien in favor of the claimant, nor is the title to the property in him. Defendant, under his statement, may owe his son for the value of the produce consumed by the family, and be may owe bis wife for so much of the money as was used by him; but the title to the crops is in the defendant in execution, and, being so, is subject to the plaintiff’s execution.

The rulings of the trial court on the evidence and in his oral charge proceeded on a different theory and were error. It is, we think, unnecessary to pass upon the separate assignments of error. The judgment must be reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

SAMFORD, J.

At the November term, ^,919, plaintiff obtained a judgment against Mack Ivey, defendant in execution, for §440.-88. Execution was regularly issued and levy was made on one mule and certain produce raised by defendant, Mack Ivey, on a farm cultivated by him and bis family during the year 1919. Claim was interposed to the property by Ed Ivey, son of defendant in execution; the basis of bis claim being that in the fall of 1918 he had turned over certain farm produce to claimant’s mother, consisting of corn, peanuts, sugar cane, and velvet beans, and during 1919 at different times be bad sent to bis mother various amounts of money, aggregating about §90, and this produce and. money was used by the defendant and bis family while making the crop of 1919.

The land was rented by defendant in execution and tended by him and his family. The property was in the possession/ of Mack Ivey when levied on by the sheriff under the execution. This state of facts does not constitute a lien in favor of the claimant, nor is the title to the property in him. Defendant, under his statement, may owe his son for the value of the produce consumed by the family, and be may owe bis wife for so much of the money as was used by him; but the title to the crops is in the defendant in execution, and, being so, is subject to the plaintiff’s execution.

The rulings of the trial court on the evidence and in his oral charge proceeded on a different theory and were error. It is, we think, unnecessary to pass upon the separate assignments of error. The judgment must be reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 So. 95, 18 Ala. App. 113, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynolds-v-ivey-alactapp-1921.