Murphree v. Farmers' Sav. Bank

Alabama Court of Appeals

Murphree v. Farmers' Sav. Bank

77 So. 934, 16 Ala. App. 340, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 22

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 15, 1918

Docket6 Div. 264.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 77 So. 934 (Murphree v. Farmers' Sav. Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Murphree v. Farmers' Sav. Bank, 77 So. 934, 16 Ala. App. 340, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 22 (Ala. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, P. J.

[1,2] The institution of a suit within two months after request to enter satisfaction of record of a mortgage in which the fact of payment or satisfaction of the mortgage may be contested by the mortgagor, is a complete defense to an action to recover the statutory penalty provided for in section 4898 of the Code. Whether the issues presented by the bill in equity filed by the defendant against the plaintiff and others were broad enough to embrace the question of the payment or satisfaction of the mortgage here in question was one of fact dependent upon the averments of that bill. The bill itself is not set out in the record, and we must assume, in its absence, that the issues in that case were broad enough to embrace the issue of payment or satisfaction of the mortgage in question, and that the trial court properly gave the affirmative charge requested by the defendant. Alice Bridgeforth v. State, 77 South. 77; 1 Alabama Terminal R. R. Co. v. Benns, 189 Ala. 590, 66 South. 605; Warble v. Sulzberger, 185 Ala. 603, 64 South. 361; Southern Ry. Co. v. Kendall & Co., 14 Ala. App. 242, 69 South. 328; Southern Ry. v. Herron, 12 Ala. App. 415, 68 South. 551.

Affirmed.

1

Ante, p. 239.

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

BROWN, P. J.

[1,2] The institution of a suit within two months after request to enter satisfaction of record of a mortgage in which the fact of payment or satisfaction of the mortgage may be contested by the mortgagor, is a complete defense to an action to recover the statutory penalty provided for in section 4898 of the Code. Whether the issues presented by the bill in equity filed by the defendant against the plaintiff and others were broad enough to embrace the question of the payment or satisfaction of the mortgage here in question was one of fact dependent upon the averments of that bill. The bill itself is not set out in the record, and we must assume, in its absence, that the issues in that case were broad enough to embrace the issue of payment or satisfaction of the mortgage in question, and that the trial court properly gave the affirmative charge requested by the defendant. Alice Bridgeforth v. State, 77 South. 77; 1 Alabama Terminal R. R. Co. v. Benns, 189 Ala. 590, 66 South. 605; Warble v. Sulzberger, 185 Ala. 603, 64 South. 361; Southern Ry. Co. v. Kendall & Co., 14 Ala. App. 242, 69 South. 328; Southern Ry. v. Herron, 12 Ala. App. 415, 68 South. 551.

Affirmed.

1

Ante, p. 239.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 So. 934, 16 Ala. App. 340, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphree-v-farmers-sav-bank-alactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack