Porter v. Jenkins

Supreme Court of Alabama

Porter v. Jenkins

45 Ala. 125

DecidedJanuary 15, 1871

StatusPublished

This text of 45 Ala. 125 (Porter v. Jenkins) 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

Porter v. Jenkins, 45 Ala. 125 (Ala. 1871).

Pincite

Opinion

B. F. SAFFOLD, J.

The appellee filed his bill to enjoin the appellant from selling certain lands mortgaged to him by the complainant, on the ground that the debt intended to be secured by the mortgage had been paid. The injunction granted was made perpetual.

The issues between the parties are rather matters of fact than of law. Both were examined as witnesses, and their testimony is conflicting. There is also contradiction in the testimony of the other witnesses as to whether the corn sold by the complainant to the defendant was purchased before or after the mortgage was given. The weight of evidence is in favor of the complainant respecting the resale of the house and lot in Talladega and .the disposition to be made of the money, and also in regard to the wheat.

The rule is well settled, that this court will not reverse a decree of the chancery court in matters of fact, unless the weight of evidence is decidedly adverse.

The decree is affirmed.

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

B. F. SAFFOLD, J.

The appellee filed his bill to enjoin the appellant from selling certain lands mortgaged to him by the complainant, on the ground that the debt intended to be secured by the mortgage had been paid. The injunction granted was made perpetual.

The issues between the parties are rather matters of fact than of law. Both were examined as witnesses, and their testimony is conflicting. There is also contradiction in the testimony of the other witnesses as to whether the corn sold by the complainant to the defendant was purchased before or after the mortgage was given. The weight of evidence is in favor of the complainant respecting the resale of the house and lot in Talladega and .the disposition to be made of the money, and also in regard to the wheat.

The rule is well settled, that this court will not reverse a decree of the chancery court in matters of fact, unless the weight of evidence is decidedly adverse.

The decree is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 Ala. 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porter-v-jenkins-ala-1871.