116 Ala. 410 | Ala. | 1896
Lead Opinion
On the evidence in this case, Joseph H. Sloss was not the agent of the respondent, The American Mortgage Company of Scotland, in or about or in respect of the transaction whereby said company loaned five hundred dollars to D. 0. Farmer and took a mortgage signed by said Farmer and his wife, the complainant, covering the land in controversy, to secure the payment of said loan ; but, to the contrary said Sloss was employed by D. C. Farmer to secure the loan for him, and the former acted throughout the negotiation and to the consummation of the loan as the agent of the latter. — Ginn v. New England Mortgage Security Co., 92 Ala. 135; American Mortgage Co. v. King, 105 Ala. 358; Land Mortgage & Investment Co. v. Vinson, 105 Ala. 389; Edinburgh American Land Mortgage Co. v. Peoples, 102 Ala. 241.
While acting as Farmer’s agent and in the line of such agency he examined the title to the land, upon the security afforded by which he was endeavoring to obtain a loan for Farmer, with a view to giving assurances for Farmer that the latter’s title to the land was perfect in order that persons engaged in the business of making loans on real estate security might be induced to lend Farmer five hundred dollars on this land. Knowledge or notice acquired by or imputable to Sloss, in this examination or because of matters disclosed by it, of the fact that the land belonged to Elizabeth Farmer, and not to her husband, D. C. Farmer, was knowledge of and notice to the agent of Farmer, and was neither the knowledge of nor any notice to the Mortgage Co., which subsequently made the loan relying upon the assurances of Farmer and his agent, Sloss, that the title to the land was in the borrower. There is no room in this case for the operation of the principle of ratification by one of the acts of another whereby that other becomes, now for then, so to speak, the agent of the person ratifying for all purposes in respect of the act done. The mere fact
It follows from these considerations that the respondent was a bona jicle purchaser for value without notice of the rights now asserted by Mrs. Farmer, and its rights are, therefore, superior to hers.
Affirmed.
Rehearing
Rehearing.
In considering the application for rehearing, the court has reached the conclusion that what is said in the origina] opinion and the result reached thereon is inapplicable and incorrect in respect of that part of the land in controversy which is described as the north half of west half of southeast quarter of section 18, township 5, range 6 east. This land belonged to the complainant in fee. She had a legal title to it, and not a mere undisclosed equity in it. Having the possession of the land, it is of no consequence that her title was not evidenced by muniments, recorded or not, but rested on a possession derived from her father, under a deed intended and supposed to describe the land, but which in fact did not, and held adversely by her for more than ten years. The mortgage company purchasing only the title of the husband to any of the land, acquired no title to this land since the husband had no title in it; and no question of purchase for value without notice can arise as to it. The mortgage being to secure a debt of the husband is void as to this land of the wife ; and she is entitled to the relief prayed in respect of it.
Reversed and rendered.