Court Opinion

ID: 9527951
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:35:45.742274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:18.530300
License: Public Domain

*599On Application for Rehearing
Upon application for rehearing it is insisted that we have impinged upon our decision in Bern v. Rosen, 259 Ala. 292, 66 So.2d 711, when we labelled the contract involved in the litigation as a conditional sales contract. We did not intend any such result. We point out that in Bern v. Rosen, supra, the rights of an innocent purchaser were involved. Here that is not the situation. In Bern v. Rosen it is stated that the argument that all the incidents of the contract together with the circumstances show an intention of the parties that the transaction was one of sale and not by way of loan, might be considered pertinent to litigation between vendor and vendee. In this case, the bank merely purchased the contract from the Aluminum Sales Company. The litigation here is between the bank and S. C. Ballard who purchased the equipment.
It does not seem to us that it makes any difference what label is placed on the contract. The contract was in default because payment became in default. Under the terms of the contract no demand was necessary as a condition precedent to suit. We are simply referring to the contract and are not intending to say that a demand would have been necessary in the absence of such a provision. For if the contract is regarded as a chattel mortgage, no demand was necessary, because the instrument contains no words postponing the mortgagee’s right of possession until default. Foremost Dairies Inc. v. Andrews, 30 Ala.App. 603, 10 So.2d 869, certiorari denied 243 Ala. 554, 10 So.2d 871; Hardison v. Plummer, 152 Ala. 619, 44 So. 591. Finally the balance due under the contract was reached by agreement of the parties as stated in court. It is unnecessary to label the contract here involved and our opinion is modified to that extent.
Opinion modified and application for rehearing overruled.