Court Opinion

ID: 9864436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 13:06:42.195775+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:12.529539
License: Public Domain

■McFaddin, J., concurring. I concur in the result reached in this case; but there is one paragraph in the majority opinion that gives me some concern; and I desire to discuss that paragraph. It is the one reading: “It is urged by appellant that the order forbidding the operation of the dance hall and the sale of liquor and beer was ineffective as to the tenant Steel, because he was not a party to the original proceeding. This contention cannot be sustained. The court found that the operation of the dance hall, beer parlor and liquor store on the described premises was a nuisance and enjoined same. This was a perpetual order an¿, unless modified by the court, continued in force, regardless of any change in the ownership or possession of the property. ‘Where the decree is' not only in personam against defendant in the injunction suit, but also operates in rem against specific property, or against a given illegal use of such property, the decree is a limitation upon the use of the property of which all subsequent owners, lessees, or occupants must take notice.’ 46 C. J. 800. ‘An injunction restraining the defendant and all other persons from keeping or maintaining a nuisance on certain premises is considered one in rem, which- is binding upon subsequent owners, tenants, or occupants, of which they must take notice at their peril .- . .’ 39 Am. Jur. 448.” This paragraph might lead someone to conclude that this court was holding that the injunction in public nuisance cases operates in rem, and that any subsequent purchaser of the premises is bound by the previous injunction proceedings regardless of the question of actual knowledge. If that meaning should be inferred from the above paragraph then I point out that such a holding (1) is dicta in this case; and (2) is Unsound law. (1) Such a holding is dicta in this case, because J. J. 'Steel is not a party of record in this case, and therefore his rights cannot be adjudicated here. In the original injunction proceedings in 1942, J. J. Futrell and Tom Craft were the only defendants. In the 1944 proceedings, Futrell alone was the party defendant. Futrell is the only party appellant although the name of Craft appears on the brief. In the order of January 19, 1944, Futrell alone appeared; and in the motion for new trial Futrell was the only movant. So any question as to whether Steel is a subsequent purchaser from Craft, with knowledge or notice of the injunction, cannot be adjudicated in this case since Steel is not a party to the record. Therefore any language in the opinion, about the injunction being in rem and binding on subsequent owners and holders, is purely dicta. (2) It would be unsound law to hold that an injunction, under chapter 134 of Pope’s Digest, ran with the land and that “all subsequent owners, lessees, or occupants must take notice.” I say such a holding would be unsound law, because it would change our recordation laws as contained in §§ 1846-7 of Pope’s Digest. These sections say, inter alia, that any instrument affecting the title to property shall be constructive notice only■ from the time that it is filed for record in the office of the recorder; and that no instrument of writing affecting title should be good or valid against a subsequent purchaser of such real estate for a valuable consideration, without actual notice thereof, unless the instrument has been acknowledged and filed as required by law. I cannot believe that the Legislature, in enacting the laws concerning public, nuisances, (as contained in Chapter 134 of Pope’s Digest), intended to change or modify our recordation laws which have been in effect since the Act of December 19, 1846. Yet if an injunction, under the public nuisance laws, runs with the land, then a person purchasing real estate would have to examine all of the Circuit Court records and Chancery Court records of the County from the enactment of the first of the public nuisance laws, (in 1915)', up to the time of the purchase to see if any of the property about to be purchased, had ever been involved in some public nuisance proceeding. Abstractors would have to set up new methods for examining Court records to cover the question of public nuisance injunctions. The public nuisance laws, contained in Chapter 134 of Pope’s Digest, embrace three acts of the Legislature, being Act 109 of 1915, Act 118 of 1937, and Act 331 of 1937. There is no section, in any of these acts, that attempts to repeal the recordation laws; and any construction of these acts, which would let the injunction orderbe. in rein and binding on subsequent owners, would give an effect to these acts that is not expressed in the acts, and would do violence to our recordation statutes. Such a construction should be avoided, and is not necessary to the conclusion and result reached by the majority in this case. Therefore, this concurring opinion is to direct attention against any possible misunderstanding of the extent and effect of the majority opinion.