City Nat. Bank v. Nelson
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the Court
This is the second appeal in this case. 214 Ala. 297,107 So. 849.
We think the sixth count of the complaint not only sufficiently charges that the plaintiff had a lien, but that the defendant had notice that the cotton in question was subject to said lien.
It is true section 8806, of the Code of 1923, not only gives the landlord a lien on the crop grown by the tenant but upon the proceeds of the sale of said crop. It is also true, that there cannot be a total or entire destruction of the lien until the crop is disposed of and the proceeds are beyond reach of the landlord. Ehrman v. Oats, 101…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Burns v. CampbellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1882
- Commercial National Bank v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Craft v. RussellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
- Lehman, Durr & Co. v. Kelly & Bro.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1880
- Spires v. JonesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1924
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- State v. MinceyArizona Supreme Court · 1981
- Dollar v. McKinneySupreme Court of Alabama · 1958
- Hicks v. BiddleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
- Prior v. RathjenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1972
- Hodges v. BeardsleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1959
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.