Lunsford v. Empire Realty & Mortgage Co.

75 So. 960, 200 Ala. 202, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 378
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedMay 10, 1917
Docket6 Div. 489.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 75 So. 960 (Lunsford v. Empire Realty & Mortgage 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
Lunsford v. Empire Realty & Mortgage Co., 75 So. 960, 200 Ala. 202, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 378 (Ala. 1917).

Opinion

ANDERSON, C. J.

This is an appeal from the final decree of the chancery court, and the cause was submitted upon the pleading and exhibits and the evidence of the complainant, the respondent offering no testimony. It is sufficient to say that the material averments of the bill were either admitted in the respondent’s answer, or were, at least, prima facie proved by the evidence.

[1] Appellant’s counsel argues that the averment that complainant was an Alabama corporation was not proven. This averment appears in paragraph 1 of the bill, and the respondent’s answer admits said paragraph.

[2] It is also suggested that the proof does not show that this identical mortgage was assumed. The deed recited two existing mortgages aggregating $9,000. Pearl Maloney testified (record page 48), that there were but two mortgages on the property when the deed was made to the respondent, this one, and one to the Great Southern Insurance Company for $7,000. It is true that these two, upon their face indicate an indebtedness of $9,500 instead of $9,000, but some of the debt on the mortgage in question had been paid when the deed was made to the respondent, and it is evident that these are the two mortgages referred to in *203 the deed to the respondent as forming a part of the consideration of the said deed.

There was also evidence that the respondent was the grantee under the deed with such a knowledge as to make the recital therein as to the assumption of the mortgage indebtedness binding on her. Especially was the chancery court justified in this conclusion upon the complainant’s proof, unexplained and uncontradicted by the respondent.

The decreq of the chancery court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

McCLELLAN, SAYRE, and GARDNER, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Mundy v. Allison
187 So. 722 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1939)
Hicks v. Biddle
117 So. 688 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 So. 960, 200 Ala. 202, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lunsford-v-empire-realty-mortgage-co-ala-1917.