Supreme Court of Alabama, 1920

Lyons v. Yielding

Lyons v. Yielding
Supreme Court of Alabama · Decided January 15, 1920 · Thomas, Anderson, McClellan, Somerville
85 So. 21; 203 Ala. 682; 1920 Ala. LEXIS 462 (Southern Reporter)

Lyons v. Yielding

Opinion of the Court

THOMAS, J.

The bill, as amended, prays that the bill of sale or transfer of corporate stock be declared a security for debt.

[1,2] The nature and character of the contract in question, whether that of the sale of stock in the Julian-Beggs Signal Company or a mortgage thereon or pledge thereof, was properly shown by parol evidence. Corley v. Vizard, 84 South. 299, 1 and authorities collected. If a debt was secured, as was done here, the transaction is a mortgage or security for debt, regardless of the wording of the contract. Harrison v. Maury, 157 Ala. 227, 229, 47 South. 724; Rodgers v. Burt, 157 Ala. 91, 96, 97, 47 South. 226; Smith v. Smith, 153 Ala. 504, 508, 45 South. 168; Robinson v. Farrelly, 16 Ala. 472, 476.

[3] We have carefully examined the record, and are of the opinion that the finding of fact is supported by evidence that is clear, consistent, strong, and convincing. Knaus v. Dreher, 84 Ala. 319, 4 South, 287; Downing v. Woodstock Iron Co., 93 Ala. 262, 9 South. 177; T. C. I. & R. Co. v. Wheeler, 125 Ala. 538, 28 South. 38; Folmar v. Lehman-Durr Co., 147 Ala. 472, 477, 41 South. 750.

The decree of the circuit court, in equity, is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELLAN and SOMERVILLE, JJ., concur.
1

Ante, p. 564.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.