Court Opinion

ID: 9825491
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:12:56.737492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:54.116570
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
The obligation or mortgage, the basis of this suit, became due by election of the mortgagee on May 7, 1920. On that day the statute of limitation as fixed by Acts 1915, p. 142, began to run in favor of this defendant. On the 21st of May, 1920, suit was filed by this plaintiff against defendant, claiming certain personal property named in the mortgage. On the trial of the case, August 24,1925, plaintiff was allowed to amend his complaint by adding a count for the conversion of the property named in the original count and covered by the mortgage. To this added count defendant pleaded the statute of limitation of three years, as is provided in Acts 1915, p. 142. The question is: Did the filing of the amendment relate back to the filing of the original suit? so as to avoid the bar of the above statute.'
Under section 9513 of the Code, the complaint was amendable, by adding a count claiming for a conversion of the property sued for in the first count, and such amendment related back to the commencement of the suit. Mobile Light & R. R. Co. v. Portiss, 195 Ala. 320, 70 So. 136; Wilson v. Ratcliff, 197 Ala. 548, 73 So. 84; Dallas Mfg. Co. v. Townes, 162 Ala. 630, 50 So. 157; Code 1923, § 9513-
*637Refused charges 8 and 9 are covered by given charges 1 and 10.
Application overruled.