Grooms v. Hannon

59 Ala. 510
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedDecember 15, 1877
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 59 Ala. 510 (Grooms v. Hannon) 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
Grooms v. Hannon, 59 Ala. 510 (Ala. 1877).

Opinion

STONE, J.—

The statute under which this suit was brought is highly penal.—Code of 1876, §§ 2222-3. The penalty is denounced against the mortgagee, who fails to enter satisfaction on the mortgage, under the circumstances shown in the statute. To recover a statutory penalty, the party complaining must bring himself within the letter of the statute; for such statutes are construed strictly.—Fairly v. Davis, 6 Ala. 375; Russell v. Irby, 14 Ala. 131; Jones v. Brooks, 30 Ala. 588; Connoly v. A. & T. Rivers R. R. 29 Ala. 373; 2 Brick. Dig. 464, § 6; Authorities on brief of counsel. The statute does not authorize the institution of a suit against the transferee of the mortgage.

The .remedy in this case being statutory and penal, and* the complaint showing on its face that the action is improperly brought against a person who is in no sense liable, the-complaint does not contain a substantial cause of action. Code of 1876, §3158. Under no allowable amendment or-change of pleadings can this action be maintained. A judgment recovered in this suit, would have been arrested or- reversed on error. Hence, no matter what rulings the City Court made against the plaintiff below, it was, at most, error-without injury. For such error this court will not reverse-1 Brick. Dig. 780, § 96.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Smith v. GMAC Mortgage Corp.
859 A.2d 981 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2004)
Fallon v. Hackney
130 So. 2d 52 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1961)
Stewart v. Gilliland
121 So. 35 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1929)
Wills v. Cleghorn
110 So. 917 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1926)
Scales v. Rosenbush Furniture Co.
101 So. 743 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1924)
Bright v. Wynn
97 So. 689 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1923)
Butler Cotton Oil Co. v. Brooks
85 So. 778 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1920)
Wilkerson v. Sorsby
77 So. 708 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1918)
McClendon v. Henderson Land & Development Co.
63 So. 811 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1913)
Greek-American Produce Co. v. Illinois Central R. R.
58 So. 994 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1912)
State v. Adams Express Co.
87 N.E. 712 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1909)
State v. Squibb
84 N.E. 969 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1908)
Hamaker v. Bynum
137 Ala. 391 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1902)
Southern Building & Loan Ass'n v. McCants
120 Ala. 616 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1898)
United States v. Harris
78 F. 290 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1897)
Postal Telegraph Co. v. Lenoir
107 Ala. 640 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1894)
Scott v. Field
75 Ala. 419 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1883)
Smith v. Sweeney
69 Ala. 524 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 Ala. 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grooms-v-hannon-ala-1877.