Court Opinion

ID: 9825215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:19:34.733983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:33.106585
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Was the plaintiff in this case the surety to the bank for the debt of defendant, and, if so, was the debt of defendant to the bank paid in whole or in part by this plaintiff? The facts as disclosed by the record are as follows: Defendant (Bentley) was a tenant of plaintiff (Mrs. Bradley) during *302the year 1931. So far as this case is concerned and eliminating other crops not here involved, the rent due plaintiff was to be one-fourth of the cotton raised on the rented premises during the year 1931. The tenant desiring advances with which to make the crop and the plaintiff being willing to assist him in obtaining such advances, the parties applied to the First National Bank of Anniston for the necessary loan, and, at the suggestion of Mr. Bell, the cashier of the bank, it was agreed that defendant should' execute a mortgage to plaintiff conveying the crops to be raised during the year 1931 and also said mortgage to include the mules and wagon involved in this suit, that the amount named in the mortgage was to be passed to the credit of this defendant, and the mortgage to be assigned by plaintiff to the bank to secure this loan. This was done, the amount passed to. the credit of defendant was drawn out and used by him during the year 1931, of which this plaintiff received no part. In the fall of 1931 defendant gathered from the rented premises fourteen bales of cotton, which were placed, in a warehouse and the receipts for same deposited with the bank. In March, 1932, the cotton was sold and the proceeds applied to the payment of the debt due the bank. The amount paid the bank extinguished the bank’s claim, but did not exceed that amount. So that, the one-fourth interest of the plaintiff in the cotton was consumed in the payment of defendant’s obligation to the bank for which she has never received payment.
However the transaction with the bank may have been consummatéd, the original debtor was the defendant (Bentley). To him the consideration moved and on him was the primary obligation to pay. The obligation of plaintiff (Mrs. Bradley) was that of surety and she was only bound to pay if Bentley did not. Rollings v. Gunter, 211 Ala. 672, 101 So. 446; Bright v. Mack, 197 Ala. 219, 72 So. 433; Tennessee-Hermitage Nat. Bank v. Hagan, 218 Ala. 395, 119 So. 4.
It being established by the undisputed evidence that Bentley was the debtor and Mrs.,Bradley was the surety, it is quite clear from the evidence that the debt of Bentley to the bank was paid by Mrs. Bradley and to the extent of this payment she is subrogated both in law and in equity to all the rights of the creditor bank. Code 1923, § 9553.
Upon payment of the debt to the bank by-Mrs. Bradley, she was' entitled to have had the mortgage and note made by Bentley retransferred to her, but whether this was done or not, as between her and Bentley, she was subrogated to all of the rights under the mortgage. Anniston Banking & Loan Co. v. Green, 197 Ala. 567, 73 So. 81.
The fact that the mortgage of Bentley was marked “Paid” and the record of the mortgage was marked “Satisfied,” as between the parties to this suit, did not have the effect of destroying plaintiff’s rights. Whatever may be the rights of innocent third persons under the facts do not affect this case. Thrasher v. Neeley, 196 Ala. 576, 72 So. 115.
The opinion is amended and extended, application for rehearing granted, and the judgment of affirmance set aside, and the judgment in the circuit court is reversed and the cause is remanded.
Reversed and remanded.