Case ID: ala_78/html/0317-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SOMERVILLE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Beard, Wright & Hamil v. Woodard.
    
      Attachment for Advances to Malee Crop.
    
    1. Sufficiency of affidavit. — An affidavit for an attachment, to enforce a statutory lien for advances to make a crop (Code, § 3286), must state the nature or kind of articles advanced, whether mules, horses, oxen, necessary provisions, &c.; and a general averment that advances were made to enable the defendant to make a crop, is insufficient.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Dale.
    Tried before the ILon. Henry D. Clayton.
    This action was brought by the appellants, suing as partners, against A. C. <& H. S. Woodard, and was commenced by attachment sued out on the 2d November, 1883. The affidavit for the attachment stated, that the defendants were indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum of $310, “which amount is due by crop-lien note executed by the defendants on the 15th day of January, 1883, and due on the 15th day of October, 1883; which note was given by defendants to plaintiffs for advances to enable them to make a crop for the year 1883, and it was declared in said note that said advances were obtained by them honafide for the purpose of making a crop, and that without such advances it would not be in the power of the said A. C. & H. S. Woodard to procure the necessary teams, provisions, and farming implements to make a crop ; that the said defendants made a crop in Dale county, Alabama, during the year 1883, and have removed a part of the crop from the premises, without paying the amount which is due for advances,” &c. The defendants craved oyer of the affidavit, and pleaded in abatement of the attachment, “because said affidavit .fails to state that the ‘advances were made in horses, mules, oxen, necessary provisions or farming tools and implements, or money to purchase the same.” The plaintiffs demurred to*this plea, but the court overruled the demurrer; and they declining to plead over, judgment was rendered quashing the attacliment. The judgment on the demurrer is now assigned as error.
    M. N. Carlisle, for appellants,
    cited Dawson v. Higgins, 50 Ala. 49; Corner v. Jackson, 74 Ala. 465; Schuessler v. Gaines, 68 Ala. 556.
    
      W. I). Roberts, contra,
    
    cited F learner v. Dickerson, 65 Ala. 129; Schuessler v. Gaines,8 Ala. 556.
   SOMERVILLE, J.

The question raised in this case was expressly decided in Flexner v. Dickerson, 65 Ala. 129. It was there held that, in an attachment proceeding, issued to enforce the statutory lien for advances to make a crop,, under section .3286 of the Code, the affidavit must state the facts which bring the case within the law, by showing, among other averments, the nature of the articles advanced, whether “horses, tnules, oxen, or necessary provisions, farming tools and implements, or money to purchase the same.” The general averment, in such an affidavit, that the plaintiff' made advances to enable the defendant to make a crop for the current year, without averring in what such advances consisted, is insufficient.

The plea in abatement was properly sustained, and the judgment is affirmed.