Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

203 Ala. 682

85 So 21

Lyons v. Yielding

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 15, 1920

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1920-01-15

Locke, Judge. Suit by W. L. Yielding against Solomon Lyons for an accounting, to have a bill of sale declared a mortgage and redeemed. Decree for claimant, and respondent appeals. The bill alleges that Yielding procured from Lyons a loan of $85 for 30 days, receiving therefor a sum of $75 himself, and executing to Lyons a bill of sale for certain Sto.clr in the Julian-Beggs Signal Company; said bill of sale being intended as a security or pledge for the money loaned.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 1988

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“If a debt was secured, as was done here, the transaction is a mortgage or security for debt, regardless of the wording of the contract.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including In Re Windham Power Lifts Inc.

Relies on Smith v. Smith · Rodgers v. Burt · Knaus v. Dreher

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1920-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

THOMAS, J.

¶1 The bill, as amended, prays that the bill of sale or transfer of corporate stock be declared a security for debt.

¶2 [1,2] The nature and character of the contract in question, whether that of the sale of stock in the Julian-Beggs Signal Company or a mortgage thereon or pledge thereof, was properly shown by parol evidence. Corley v. Vizard, 84 South. 299, 1 and authorities collected. If a debt was secured, as was done here, the transaction is a mortgage or security for debt, regardless of the wording of the contract. Harrison v. Maury, 157 Ala. 227, 229, 47 South. 724; Rodgers v. Burt, 157 Ala. 91, 96, 97, 47 South. 226; Smith v. Smith, 153 Ala. 504, 508, 45 South. 168; Robinson v. Farrelly, 16 Ala. 472, 476.

¶3 [3] We have carefully examined the record, and are of the opinion that the finding of fact is supported by evidence that is clear, consistent, strong, and convincing. Knaus v. Dreher, 84 Ala. 319, 4 South, 287; Downing v. Woodstock Iron Co., 93 Ala. 262, 9 South. 177; T. C. I. & R. Co. v. Wheeler, 125 Ala. 538, 28 South. 38; Folmar v. Lehman-Durr Co., 147 Ala. 472, 477, 41 South. 750.

¶4 The decree of the circuit court, in equity, is affirmed.

¶5 Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELLAN and SOMERVILLE, JJ., concur.
1

¶6 Ante, p. 564.

/203/ala/682 · .json · Public domain