Windham v. Wilson
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Per curiam
It is insisted that the mortgages on the crops for 1915 were invalid, as the mortgagors had made no rental contract, had no interest in the land at the time, and that therefore the crops had no potential existence.
The rule is recognized that to create a specific lien on crops, such as will prevail against third persons who subsequently acquire a specific interest therein, it must appear that such crops were the contemplated product of the land to which the mortgagor had at the time a definite present interest, as distinguished from a mere possible or expectant future interest. Gilliland Merc.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Beck & Pauli Lithographing Co. v. HouppertSupreme Court of Alabama · 1894
- Ryan v. YoungSupreme Court of Alabama · 1906
- Windham & Co. v. Stephenson & AlexanderSupreme Court of Alabama · 1908
- Pacific Guano Co. v. AnglinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1886
- Gilliland Mercantile Co. v. Pond Bros.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1914
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Wilson v. WindhamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
- Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. GarnerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- Hogan v. BaileySupreme Court of Alabama · 1937