Hurt v. Redd & Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Bussell. Tried before the Hon. James B Cobb. This was a statutory trial of the right of property in and to a certain sum of money in the hands of the sheriff, amounting to $233, between C. A. Bedd & Co., plaintiffs in attachment against John W. Hurt, and George T. Hurt as claimant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Bussell. Tried before the Hon. James B Cobb. This was a statutory trial of the right of property in and to a certain sum of money in the hands of the sheriff, amounting to $233, between C. A. Bedd & Co., plaintiffs in attachment against John W. Hurt, and George T. Hurt as claimant. The money arose from the sale of certain mules, twelve in number, and other personal property, belonging to said John W. Hurt; on which the sheriff had levied a former attachment, at the suit of Flournoy, McGehee &. Co., against said John W. Hurt, and which he had sold, while in his…
1Opinion of the CourtBrickell, C. J.
The mortgage is of “ fourteen mules, now ” (at the time or date of executing the mortgage) “ on my ” (the mortgagor’s) “ plantation in Russell county, Alabama.” It was sufficiently specific and certain. The number of the mules is stated, and the place at which they would be found Parol evidence that the mortgagor had but one plantation in Russell county, and had there only fourteen mules, rendered the property, on which the mortgage was to operate, definite and certain, capable of positive indentification.
2. An attachment was levied on the mules, and other personal property of the mortgagor,…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Stewart v. ClemensSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- Buck v. Davenport Savings BankNebraska Supreme Court · 1890
- Hammond v. CabanissSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
- Cragin & Knobles v. DickeySupreme Court of Alabama · 1896
- Abernathy v. WorthySupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.