History
  • No items yet
midpage
Bell v. Tyson
74 Ala. 353
Ala.
1883
Check Treatment
SOMEEYILLE, J.

— We find no error in the rulings of the' Circuit Court in this cause. The defendants were not chargeable with constructive notice of plaintiff’s unrecorded mortgage, executed by Martin and others upon the crops grown upon the land which they had purchased from the plaintiff. It is shown that the defendants knew of the existence of plaintiff’s claim for the purchase-money, but we are aware of no rule of law which makes notice of the existence of a debt to be constructive notice of a secret lien created by an unrecorded mortgage by which such debt is secured. The defendants were purchasers of the cotton for value, without notice; the mere knowledge of the plaintiff’s claim not being sufficient to put them on inquiry as to the lien of his mortgage. The case of Wilkinson v. Ketler, 69 Ala. 435, is an authority conclusive of this proposition, if an authority were, needed for an elementary principle so manifestly correct and reasonable in itself.

Affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Bell v. Tyson
Court Name: Supreme Court of Alabama
Date Published: Dec 15, 1883
Citation: 74 Ala. 353
Court Abbreviation: Ala.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.