Mudd v. Alabama Mineral Land Co.

Fifth Circuit

Mudd v. Alabama Mineral Land Co.

255 F. 991, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1566

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 26, 1919

DocketNo. 3318

StatusPublished

This text of 255 F. 991 (Mudd v. Alabama Mineral Land Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mudd v. Alabama Mineral Land Co., 255 F. 991, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1566 (5th Cir. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

BATTS, Circuit Judge.

A majority of the court are of the opinion that the record establishes that the property, which is the subject-matter of the suit, is incapable of equitable partition, and the writer is of the opinion that there is evidence upon which the conclusion of the trial judge to that effect could be based. The appellants complain that the terms of sale are onerous. A slight modification may be made without injury to the parties. The judgment will bo so amended as to require that, if the appellee should be the purchaser, the costs (exclusive of the costs of appeal) and four-fifths of the balance of the purchase price be paid in cash; that, if the appellants be the purchasers, [992]*992the costs (exclusive of the costs of the appeal) and one-fifth of the balance of the purchase price be paid in cash. So modified, the judgment of the court below is affirmed, with costs against appellants. Modified and affirmed.

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

BATTS, Circuit Judge.

A majority of the court are of the opinion that the record establishes that the property, which is the subject-matter of the suit, is incapable of equitable partition, and the writer is of the opinion that there is evidence upon which the conclusion of the trial judge to that effect could be based. The appellants complain that the terms of sale are onerous. A slight modification may be made without injury to the parties. The judgment will bo so amended as to require that, if the appellee should be the purchaser, the costs (exclusive of the costs of appeal) and four-fifths of the balance of the purchase price be paid in cash; that, if the appellants be the purchasers, [992]*992the costs (exclusive of the costs of the appeal) and one-fifth of the balance of the purchase price be paid in cash. So modified, the judgment of the court below is affirmed, with costs against appellants. Modified and affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 F. 991, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mudd-v-alabama-mineral-land-co-ca5-1919.