Fields v. Drennen & Co.

115 Ala. 558
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedNovember 15, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 115 Ala. 558 (Fields v. Drennen & Co.) 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
Fields v. Drennen & Co., 115 Ala. 558 (Ala. 1896).

Opinion

McCLELLAN, J.

The complainants, Drennen & Co., have no vendor’s lien on the land involved in the case. Their assignor, Depoister, waived a lien for the purchase money when he took from the vendee a mortgage on the land to secure the payment of the purchase money. — 28 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law, p. 179, note.

But the bill, containing, as we shall see it does, proper averments for the foreclosure of the mortgage, is not rendered bad as a bill for that purpose by a special prayer which might be construed to seek the establishment and satisfaction by sale of a vendor’s lien, there being a general prayer under which the appropriate relief may well be granted.

The bill shows that the purchase money was to be paid in annual instalments, each evidenced by a promissory note, and that the mortgage was executed to secure the payment of the purchase money. On these facts ■without more it is to be presumed that the mortgage ■was conditioned for the payment of the several instalments as they matured, and that failure to pay any instalment a.t maturity is such default under the terms of [561]*561the mortgage — such a breach of its condition — as authorizes its foreclosure as to such instalment. It is averred that two of the instalments were past due and unpaid at time of bill filed. Complainant is, therefore, entitled to foreclose the mortgage for the payment of such instalments, and the decree should also embrace any instalment maturing after bill filed and prior to its rendition.—Fulgham v. Morris, 75 Ala. 245.

The foregoing disposes of all the points insisted on in the brief of appellant’s counsel adversely to the appellant, and the decree overruling the demurrer to the bill must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

J. H. Morris, Inc. v. Indian Hills, Inc.
212 So. 2d 831 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1968)
McGregor v. Shipp
189 So. 740 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1939)
Sorrells v. Cole
173 So. 607 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1937)
Denton v. Lindler
163 So. 334 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1935)
Woodley v. Woodley
79 So. 134 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1917)
Campbell v. Goldthwaite
66 So. 483 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
115 Ala. 558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fields-v-drennen-co-ala-1896.