Sewell v. Richardson

Alabama Court of Appeals

Sewell v. Richardson

104 So. 139, 20 Ala. App. 569, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 82

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 21, 1925

Docket7 Div. 109.

StatusPublished

This text of 104 So. 139 (Sewell v. Richardson) 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

Sewell v. Richardson, 104 So. 139, 20 Ala. App. 569, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 82 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The right of recovery by plaintiff rested solely upon the validity of a certain mortgage executed by Gordon Nixon and C. G. Nixon, under date of January 1, 1920, and payable to plaintiff, on the 15th day of October, 1920. Richardson v. Sewell, 19 Ala. App. 399, 97 So. 678. To create a title or lien by mortgage on crops to be grown, as against defendants who are third persons, such crops included in such mortgage must be the contemplated product of land in which the mortgagor had, at the time, a present or potential interest.. Vinson Bros. v. Finlay, 206 Ala. 478, 90 So. 310; Smith v. Davenport & Co., 12 Ala. App. 456, 68 So. 545; Alexander v. Garland, 209 Ala. 267, 96 So. 138. This was one of the issues in this case, making the evidence as to when Nixon rented the land on which the cotton in question was grown relevant.

The foregoing authorities would also seem to settle this case. Lnder the evidence, it was a question of fact for the court, trying the case without a jury, to determine whether the cotton was covered by plaintiff’s mortgage and, under the rule often announced, we will not disturb his finding.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

The right of recovery by plaintiff rested solely upon the validity of a certain mortgage executed by Gordon Nixon and C. G. Nixon, under date of January 1, 1920, and payable to plaintiff, on the 15th day of October, 1920. Richardson v. Sewell, 19 Ala. App. 399, 97 So. 678. To create a title or lien by mortgage on crops to be grown, as against defendants who are third persons, such crops included in such mortgage must be the contemplated product of land in which the mortgagor had, at the time, a present or potential interest.. Vinson Bros. v. Finlay, 206 Ala. 478, 90 So. 310; Smith v. Davenport & Co., 12 Ala. App. 456, 68 So. 545; Alexander v. Garland, 209 Ala. 267, 96 So. 138. This was one of the issues in this case, making the evidence as to when Nixon rented the land on which the cotton in question was grown relevant.

The foregoing authorities would also seem to settle this case. Lnder the evidence, it was a question of fact for the court, trying the case without a jury, to determine whether the cotton was covered by plaintiff’s mortgage and, under the rule often announced, we will not disturb his finding.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 So. 139, 20 Ala. App. 569, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sewell-v-richardson-alactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack