Bank of Florala v. Hall

99 So. 299, 211 Ala. 56, 1924 Ala. LEXIS 411
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided February 14, 1924·No. 4 Div. 96.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

GARDNER, J.

Bill by the wife for the cancellation of mortgages on certain real estate, of which she is alleged to be the owner, upon the ground the debt secured is the debt of the husband, and she signed as surety only. Section 4497, Code 1907.

On the face of these mortgages a joint and several liability for the payment of the indebtedness thereby intended to be secured appears to have been assumed by complainant and her husband, T. A. Hall. The hus-bánd is not made a party of the bill, and the assignments of demurrer take the point he was a necessary party. It is conceded hy counsel for appellee, and correctly so, that these assignments of demurrer were well taken, and should have been sustained under the authority of Cudd v. Reynolds, 186 Ala. 207, 65 South. 41—a case directly in point.

The decree overruling the demurrer will be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE and MILLER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bank of Florala v. Hall, 99 So. 299, 211 Ala. 56, 1924 Ala. LEXIS 411 (Ala. 1924).

99 So. 299 (Bank of Florala v. Hall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hall v. Bank of Florala
104 So. 791 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)