Motes v. Robertson

133 Ala. 630
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided November 15, 1901·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

MoCLELLAN, C. J.

It is laid down by Mr. Pomeroy that “The doctrine [of equitable assignment] is also justly extended, by analogy, to one who, having no previous interest, and being under no obligation, pays off the mortgage, or advances money for its payment, at the instance of a debtor party and for his benefit, such person is in no true sense a mere stranger and volunteer.” The doctrine thus stated has recently been approved and applied by this court, (Faulk et al. v. Galloway, 123 Ala. 325) ; and it is believed not to be inconsistent with any of our previous adjudications. [632] Applying it to the facts averred in the present bill, the conclusion must be that the. bill presents a case for equitable relief' by way of subrogation to the lien of the mortgage given by Dick Roberson to the Mortgage Company for. the reimbursement of complainant in respect of the sums she paid, directly or indirectly, at his instance and request on the mortgage debt. Our conclusion is, therefore, that the chancellor erred in dismissing the bill for want of equity.

Reversed and remanded. -

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

Motes v. Robertson, 133 Ala. 630 (Ala. 1901).

133 Ala. 630 (Motes v. Robertson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Duke v. Kilpatrick
163 So. 640 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1935)
Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Brunson
145 So. 156 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1932)
Brewer v. Folsom Bros. Co.
5 P.2d 283 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1931)
Woodruff v. Satterfield
74 So. 948 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1917)
Arnett v. Willoughby
67 So. 426 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1914)
Powers v. Pense
123 P. 925 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1912)
Hughes v. Howell
44 So. 410 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1907)
Hughes v. Thomas
111 N.W. 474 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1907)
Tradesmens National Bank v. Sheffield City Co.
137 Ala. 547 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1902)