Huggins v. Hall, Wragg & Chandler
10 Ala. 283
Opinion
Our first impression was, and we so announced it, that the heir of the mortgagee was a necessary party defendant, and could not be a party complainant. Subsequent reflection has satisfied us, that we were under a mistake. The mortgagor being out of possession, the mortgage could not be foreclosed, without the heir of the mortgagee, who was in possession, being a party to the suit, and in our opinion, it is unimportant, whether he is a party plaintiff, or defendant.
Let the decree of the court be reversed, and the cause be j-emanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Huggins v. Hall, Wragg & Chandler, 10 Ala. 283 (Ala. 1846).
10 Ala. 283 (Huggins v. Hall, Wragg & Chandler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Barnett v. Waddell
27 So. 2d 1 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1946)
Trotter v. Brown
167 So. 310 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1936)
Silverstein v. First Nat. Bank of Birmingham
165 So. 827 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1936)
Woodruff v. Mutschler
34 N.J. Eq. 33 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1881)
Welsh v. Phillips
54 Ala. 309 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1875)