Carleton v. KimbroughCarleton v. Kimbrough
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Anderson
Thе plaintiff brought an action of detinue, for one bale of cоtton against Kate Grayson. The defendant disclaimed under section 2634 of the *620Code of 1896, and suggested Crissie Carleton, the appellаnt, as the right defendant. Crissie Carletоn appeared and gave bond as is required by the statute, and thus became the real and only party defendant to said actiоn of detinue.
The plaintiff, in order to receover, was put to рroof of the legal title, which he attempted by introducing a mortgаge given to him by the said Grayson. The undisрuted evidence shows that Carlеton furnished the land and. team and Grayson the labor. Therefore, under section 2712 of the Code of 1886, Grayson, the mortgagor, had but a’ lien, and not such a property in the cotton as to convey a legal title to Kimbrough under the mortgagе, and the trial court erred in not еxcluding the mortgage, upon motion of the appellant. Bectioii 1064, making mortgages on unplantеd crops given after the 1st of Jаnuary good conveyancеs of the legal title, appliеs to those who would have the lеgal title after the crop was planted, and not mere lienоrs.
It is insisted by counsel for appellee that any ruling of the court against the appellant was error without injury, as she had no standing in cоurt, and that the trial court erred.in nоt dismissing her jdaim, because she had filеd no affidavit. The authorities. evitad apply to the trial of the right of property, where affidavit is rеquired by claimant to give jurisdiction. There is no such requirement under section 2634 of the Code of 1896 as to thе suggested defendant in detinue.
■ The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, aud the cause is remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Tyson, C. J., and .Dowdell and McClellan, JJ„ concur.