Legal Opinion

International Harvester Co. of America v. Pittman

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 23, 1933No. 1 Div. 763PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BOULDIN, Justice.

In action of detinue founded upon a chattel mortgage, which is in default, a voluntary promise, without consideration, to postpone the date for surrendering the property to the mortgagee, presents no defense.

No new demand for delivery before the postponed date in such case is necessary. The want of such demand might be considered by the trial court in awarding costs, and no damages for detention prior to suit filed should be awarded. Black v. Slocumb Mule Co., 8 Ala. App. 440, 62 So. 308; 11 C. J. p. 557, § 255.

A contract postponing the date when the mortgagee is entitled to…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Kirkland v. EfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
  2. Black v. Slocumb Mule Co.Alabama Court of Appeals · 1913
  3. Scott v. HowardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1927

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Dobson v. NeighborsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1934
  2. Rogers v. MitchellCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1977
  3. Nelson v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1949
  4. Muscogee Motor Co. v. CookSupreme Court of Alabama · 1939
  5. Starr Piano Co. Sales Corporation v. WoodsonAlabama Court of Appeals · 1934

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API