McCaskell v. Lee

39 Ala. 131
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJune 15, 1863
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 39 Ala. 131 (McCaskell v. Lee) 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
McCaskell v. Lee, 39 Ala. 131 (Ala. 1863).

Opinion

R. W. WALKER, J.

The time within which a motion to set aside a sale of land under execution must be made, has not been, and perhaps cannot be, definitely settled. The proceeding is of an equitable nature, to be determined upon equitable principles, not always regulated by fixed rules; and we are not disposed to reverse the decision of the circuit judge, upon the question of laches involved in such a case, unless thoroughly convinced that he has erred. In the present case, the motion was not made until over four years after the execution sale, and more than eighteen months after the purchaser at that sale had brought his action of ejectment against the appellant, for the recovery of the land; and the record fails to establish any satisfactory reason for the delay. The record fails to show the precise time of the institution of the ejectment suit, and, for aught that is shown to us, the delay in making the motion may have been nearly two years; it could not have been less than eighteen months. Under these circumstances, without going into the question whether a party, who has purchased from the defendant in execution after the sheriff’s sale, is competent to make the motion, we are not so thoroughly convinced that the court. erred in over[133]*133ruling the motion, as to feel it our duty to reverse tbe judgment. — See McCollum v. Hubbert & Caple, 13 Ala. 289.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Dean v. Lusk
3 So. 2d 310 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1941)
Dunn v. Ponceler
178 So. 40 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1937)
Ponder v. Cheeves
90 Ala. 117 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1890)
Bolling & Son v. Gantt
93 Ala. 89 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1890)
Clark v. Spencer
75 Ala. 49 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1883)
Cowan & Co. v. Sapp
74 Ala. 44 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1883)
Farris & McCurdy v. Houston
74 Ala. 162 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1883)
McCall v. White
73 Ala. 562 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1883)
Abernathy v. Moses
73 Ala. 381 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1882)
Sayre v. Elyton Land Co.
73 Ala. 85 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1882)
Holly v. Bass' Adm'r
63 Ala. 387 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1879)
Fabel v. Boykin
55 Ala. 382 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1876)
Lockett v. Hurt
57 Ala. 198 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1876)
Shaw v. Lindsay
46 Ala. 290 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1871)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 Ala. 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccaskell-v-lee-ala-1863.