Curry v. Landers

35 Ala. 280
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJune 15, 1859
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 35 Ala. 280 (Curry v. Landers) 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
Curry v. Landers, 35 Ala. 280 (Ala. 1859).

Opinion

A. J. WALKER, C. J.

In Daily v. Burke, 28 Ala. 328, it was decided, that the statute giving to judgments, from their rendition, a lien on land, was repealed by the adoption of the Code; and the constitutional power of the legislature to abrogate a lien upon real estate given by the pre-existing law, by the repeal of the law, was treated as a conceded question. We are now invited by the argument of appellant’s counsel to reconsider the question of the power of the legislature to take away the previously acquired lien. That precise point was necessarily involved in the case of Iverson v. Shorter, 9 Ala. 713, and was decided adversely to the view presented by the appellant. That decision was quoted as a precedent, without disapproval, iu Beck v. Burnett, 22 Ala. 822; and in Bugbee v. Howard, 32 Ala. 713, it was expressly approved, in a decision which was made after a careful consideration of the subject.

Such being the state of our decisions, we regard the point, that the legislature may take away a lien given by statute upon real estate, by repealing or modifying the operation of the statute under which it was acquired, as [282]*282res adjudicata in tbis State. We regard the exercise of such a power by the legislature as affecting the remedy only, and as not impairing the obligation of the contract. These views of the law lead us to the conclusion, that the lien of the defendant’s judgment, if not otherwise lost, was at least taken away by the legislature.

The decree of the chancellor is affirmed.

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

Related

Dickson v. Alabama MacHinery & Supply Co.
89 So. 843 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1921)
Albes v. Southern Ry. Co.
51 So. 327 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1909)
Enslen v. Wheeler
98 Ala. 200 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1893)
Osborn v. Johnson Wall Paper Co.
99 Ala. 309 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1892)
Mobile Savings Bank v. Burke
94 Ala. 125 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1891)
Mobley v. Leophart
51 Ala. 587 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1874)
Todd v. Neal's Administrator
49 Ala. 266 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1873)
Irvine v. Armistead
46 Ala. 363 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1871)
Martin v. Hewitt
44 Ala. 418 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1870)
Ray v. Thompson
43 Ala. 434 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1869)
Ex parte Pollard
40 Ala. 77 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1866)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 Ala. 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curry-v-landers-ala-1859.