The rule is here well established that the taking of personal security for the purchase price of land is prima facie a waiver of the vendor's lien. Foster v. Trustees of Athenaeum 3 Ala. 302" court="Ala." date_filed="1842-01-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/foster-v-trustees-of-the-athenæum-6501613?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6501613">3 Ala. 302; Kinney v. Ensminger, 94 Ala. 536" court="Ala." date_filed="1891-11-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/kinney-v-ensminger-6514588?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6514588">94 Ala. 536, 10 So. 143; Jacobs v. Goodwater Graphite Co., 205 Ala. 112" court="Ala." date_filed="1920-12-16" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/jacobs-v-goodwater-graphite-co-3249173?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3249173">205 Ala. 112, 87 So. 363" court="Ala." date_filed="1920-12-16" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/jacobs-v-goodwater-graphite-co-3249173?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3249173">87 So. 363. But the question is one of intention, and subject to rebuttal. Donegan's Adm'r v. Hentz, 70 Ala. 437" court="Ala." date_filed="1881-12-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/donegans-admr-v-hentz-6511283?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6511283">70 Ala. 437.
In the instant case the prima facie case of waiver by the acceptance of the vendee's
note, with surety thereon, is rebutted by the express language of paragraph 5 of the bill to the effect that the deed recited the unpaid portion of the purchase price was secured by a vendor's lien. If the deed so reads, as alleged, clearly the prima facie case of waiver is overcome. Authorities, supra.
This is averred as a fact, and not subject to the objection that it is but the conclusion of the pleader. Orendorff v. Tallman, 90 Ala. 441" court="Ala." date_filed="1890-11-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/orendorff-v-tallman-6514001?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6514001">90 Ala. 441, 7 So. 821; Cullman Property Co. v. H. H. Hitt Lumber Co., 201 Ala. 150" court="Ala." date_filed="1917-12-20" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/cullman-property-co-v-h-h-hitt-lumber-co-3230738?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3230738">201 Ala. 150, 77 So. 574" court="Ala." date_filed="1917-12-20" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/cullman-property-co-v-h-h-hitt-lumber-co-3230738?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3230738">77 So. 574; American Book Co. v. State, 216 Ala. 367" court="Ala." date_filed="1927-06-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/american-book-co-v-state-3239419?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3239419">216 Ala. 367, 113 So. 592" court="Ala." date_filed="1927-06-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/american-book-co-v-state-3239419?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3239419">113 So. 592.
The demurrer to the bill was properly overruled, and the decree will accordingly be here affirmed.
Affirmed.
ANDERSON, C. J., and BOULDIN and FOSTER, JJ., concur.