Appeal from Cherokee Circuit Court.

Tried before Hon. Leroy F. Box.

This was an attachment by W. H. Busbin, landlord, the appellant, against Jarret Ware and Charley Dickson, tenants, the appellees, and was sued out on the 25th September, 1880, for the purpose of enforcing his statutory lien for rent and advances. The affidavit on which the attachment was issued averred, that the rent and advances would be due on 25th December, 1880, and the ground for the attachment is in these words: “ That affiant has good cause to believe said tenants are-about to remove from -the premises, or otherwise dispose of the-crop without paying the amount which will be due for rent and advances.” On the first day of the spring term, 1881, of said' court, the appellees moved to quash the affidavit and attachment, on the ground, in substance, that the affidavit did not state that, the aj>prehended removal of the crop from the appellant’s premises, was without his consent. The court sustained the motion and quashed the attachment, and this ruling is here assigned as. error.

(1). There are-three distinct grounds given by the Code for an attachment in favor of the landlord against his tenant. — Code of 1876, § 3472. Like grounds for ordinary attachments, they are separate and. distinct. The affidavit for the attachment in this case not only substantially conforms to the requirements of sub-division 1 of § 3472, but it is a verbatim copy of that sub-division. This sub-division does not require the landlord to negative his consent to the act “about” to be done. There is good reason for the failure of this sub-division- to require that the landlord’s consent shall be negatived. Before the crop is removed, and while it remains upon the premises, the world is charged with notice of the lien. — -fomax v. Le Ora/nd <& Co., 60 Ala. 537. After its removal rights of innocent purchasers may intervene and thus prevent the landlord from following the crop. — Masterson. v. Béfiiley, 60 Ala. 520; Scaife v. Stovall, 67 Ala. 237. See also Dryer v. Abercrombie, 57 Ala. 500. (2). The law is to be construed liberally to advance its manifest intent.- — Flexner v. Dickerson, 65 Ala. 129. It would be an illiberal construction to hold, that the intent of the law is not as expressly stated in this sub-division, but that a part of the second sub-division must exist in order to give the landlord his remedy under the first sub-division. (3). De Ba/rdeleben v. Crosby, 53 Ala. 363, is based on, a different state of facts, and the point here mooted was not raised in that case.

…

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress