105 So. 897 | Ala. | 1925
Conceding, without deciding, that count 3 of the complaint, as amended, is defective in not alleging facts as a basis for the lien asserted (see Kelly v. Eyster,
As the verdict of the jury did not respond to the issue presented by the detinue count — there being no finding as to the value of the property, and no finding appropriate to a recovery of the property, or in the alternative for its value — it must be presumed that the verdict was under count 3, on the *637 case, for the destruction of plaintiff's asserted lien.
Section 6898, Code 1923 (section 3394, Code 1907), which protects bona fide purchasers for value, without notice of unrecorded conditional sales, does not change the rule as to what may be sufficient actual notice. The means of knowledge is the equivalent of knowledge, and whatever is sufficient to put one on inquiry is sufficient to charge him with notice of everything to which the inquiry would lead. Alexander v. Fountain,
But under count 3 it was incumbent on plaintiff to show, as an essential factor in his right to recover, that he had a valid lien on the car, and this burden was not met by showing that he had the legal title and the general ownership. A lien is not and cannot be title or ownership. Alexander v. Mobile Auto Co.,
For this reason defendant was entitled to the general affirmative charge as to count 3, and its refusal was prejudicial error.
Let the judgment be reversed, and the cause remanded for another trial.
Reversed and remanded.
ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.