Culbreath v. Walker

Supreme Court of Alabama

Culbreath v. Walker

98 So. 187, 210 Ala. 368, 1923 Ala. LEXIS 21

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedNovember 29, 1923

Docket8 Div. 405.

StatusPublished

This text of 98 So. 187 (Culbreath v. Walker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Culbreath v. Walker, 98 So. 187, 210 Ala. 368, 1923 Ala. LEXIS 21 (Ala. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

SOMERVILLE, J.

Under the pleadings in this.case, the only proper issue was payment of the mortgage debt, in whole or in part. The trial court allowed to respondents full credit for all the payments they claimed to have made, and decreed for complainant for the balance with interest. The theory of appellants seems to be that there was such a release of the.debt as to work its discharge, notwithstanding a large balance remained unpaid. We are not reasonably satisfied by the testimony that complainant ever surrendered the mortgage and note to respondents, or that she indorsed on them “paid” or “satisfied.” But, in any event, the answer does not set up a release or satisfaction in writing which could have effect under Oode, § 3973, according to the intention of the parties, and hence respondents could take nothing by proof of such a release.

Nor does the answer offer any outside debt as a set-off to the mortgage debt, and a general accounting was not available to respondents.

*369 These considerations lead to the conclusion that the decree of the trial court is free from error and should be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. X, and THOMAS and BOUEDIN, XI., concur.

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

SOMERVILLE, J.

Under the pleadings in this.case, the only proper issue was payment of the mortgage debt, in whole or in part. The trial court allowed to respondents full credit for all the payments they claimed to have made, and decreed for complainant for the balance with interest. The theory of appellants seems to be that there was such a release of the.debt as to work its discharge, notwithstanding a large balance remained unpaid. We are not reasonably satisfied by the testimony that complainant ever surrendered the mortgage and note to respondents, or that she indorsed on them “paid” or “satisfied.” But, in any event, the answer does not set up a release or satisfaction in writing which could have effect under Oode, § 3973, according to the intention of the parties, and hence respondents could take nothing by proof of such a release.

Nor does the answer offer any outside debt as a set-off to the mortgage debt, and a general accounting was not available to respondents.

*369 These considerations lead to the conclusion that the decree of the trial court is free from error and should be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. X, and THOMAS and BOUEDIN, XI., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 So. 187, 210 Ala. 368, 1923 Ala. LEXIS 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/culbreath-v-walker-ala-1923.