Vick v. Bishop

40 So. 2d 845, 252 Ala. 250, 1949 Ala. LEXIS 403
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedMay 19, 1949
Docket5 Div. 459.
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 40 So. 2d 845 (Vick v. Bishop) 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
Vick v. Bishop, 40 So. 2d 845, 252 Ala. 250, 1949 Ala. LEXIS 403 (Ala. 1949).

Opinion

LIVINGSTON, Justice.

The bill is one to redeem certain described lands located in Coosa County, Alabama.

The question of primary importance on this appeal is whether the notice of foreclosure sale or the method employed by the mortgagee appellant in giving such notice is sufficient. Evidence as to the notice is found in the foreclosure deed which recites :

*251 “Whereas, in and by said mortgage, said J. A. Vick was authorized and empowered, in case of default in the payment at maturity, of the debt secured thereby, to take possession of said property, and, after giving notice of the time, place and terms of sale, for ten days by posting notices at three public places, to sell at public outcry, for cash, to the highest bidder, and which said mortgage provided that in case of a sale under the power and authority contained in the same,-the auctioneer selling said property was authorized and empowered to execute title to the - purchaser ■at said sale; and

“Whereas, default was made in the payment of the said mortgage debt, at the •maturity of the same, and said property was advertised and sold in all respects as provided in said mortgage on the 19th day of January, 1943, after notice as provided' therefor in said mortgage, at which sale the said J. A. Vick became the purchaser, at and for the sum of Five Hundred Dob lars, this being the highest and best bid.”'

Section 171, Title 47, Code, is as follows:

“Notice of said sale shall be given in the manner provided in such mortgage or deed of trust, or in this Code in the county' where the mortgagor resides and the land, or a part thereof, is located; but, if said mortgagor does not reside in the county where the land or any part thereof is located, then such notice must be published in the county where said land, or any material part thereof, is located; provided, that notice of all sales under powers of sale contained in mortgages and deeds of trust executed after July 1, 1936, where the amount secured is five hundred dollars or more, shall be given by publication once a week for three successive weeks in some newspaper published in the county in which such land or any portion thereof is situated, and said notice of sale must give the time, place and terms of said sale, together , with a description of the property to be ■sold.”

Section 172, Title 47, Code, provides:

“All sales of real estate, made-.under powers contained in mortgages or deeds of trust contrary to the provisions of this . article, shall be null and void, notwithstanding any agreement' or stipulation to the contrary.”

It is conceded by appellants that no notice. of foreclosure was run in any newspaper, and that the amount of the mortgage debt at the time of the foreclosure was in excess of $500.00.

Though not in the exact language, appellants earnestly insist that sections 171 and 172, supra, must be read in pari materia with sections 713 and 721, Title 7, Code, in order to demonstrate, first, that no newspaper was published in Coosa County, within the meaning of section 171, supra, at the time of the foreclosure and, second, to evidence a legislative intent of providing an alternative method of giving notice where no newspaper is published in the county of foreclosure.

Construed together, we think that the evidence in this case demonstrates that a newspaper was published in "Coosa County, within the meaning of the statutes, at the time'of the foreclosure. The evidence is without dispute that prior to 1938, there was a newspaper printed and''published at Rockford, Coosa County, Alabama, and known as the Rockford' Chronicle, and a newspaper printed and published at Good-water, Coosa County, Alabama, known as the Goodwater Enterprise. Thomas S. Bugg purchased the Goodwater. .'Enterprise in the year 1932 and the Rockford Chronicle in the year 1938. Mr. Bugg testified:

“Q. Where do you live? A. In Dadeville.

“Q. Tallapoosa County? A. Yes, sir.

“Q. Mr. Bugg at the present time and for some years past have you or not been editor of one or more newspapers in this, Coosa County? A. Yes, sir.

“Q. What papers were they? A. Good-water Enterprise and Rockford Chronicle.

“Q. Approximately what years did you become editor of each of these papers? A. Well I bought the Enterprise from Mr. Summers in 1932, the spring of 1932 and I bought the Chronicle from Billy Smith right about 1937 or the first part, the spring of 1938, along those years, I don’t remember the exact date.

“Q. Have you been editor of those papers continuously from the time you ac *252 quired them? A. Yes, sir, separately and until they were combined later.

“Q. When you first acquired them they were published, they were printed and published separately? A. Yes, sir.

“Q. One in Goodwater and the other in Rockford? A. Yes, sir.

“Q. After you acquired the Rockford Chronicle, did you say about 1937 or 1938? A. Yes, sir.

“Q. Did you ever print it in this county or not? A. Well I printed it in Good-water for a short while, I don’t remember how long, just a very few months.

“Q. You were already, at that time you were printing the Goodwater Enterprise at Goodwater? A. Yes, sir.

“Q. And after you acquired the Rockford Chronicle you printed both of them in your newspaper plant at Goodwater? A. For a while.

“Q. Do you recall about when you ceased to print these papers there in Good-water? A. I am not sure which year, 1937 or 8, but as I recall it was the spring of one of those years, it must have been 1938. However, it seems like it might have been 1937.

“Q. 1937 or 1938? A. Yes, sir.

“Q. You ceased at that time to print either of them in Goodwater? A.- Yes, sir.

“Q. At that time you had a newspaper printing plant in Goodwater? A. Yes, sir.

“Q. What became of that newspaper printing plant at Goodwater? A. It was moved to Dadeville.

“Q. At the time you moved this plant over to Dadeville from Goodwater was there any other newspaper plant in Coosa County at that time? A. That was the only one, not a printing business left in Coosa County.

“Q. Has there been any other' newspaper printing plant in Coosá County since you moved that away? A. I think not, I have no knowledge of it.

“Q. You spoke of the consolidation of the Rockford Chronicle and the Good-water Enterprise, do you recall when that consolidation was made? A. The first issue in January, 1943.

“Q. January 1943? A. Yes, sir.

“Q. Do you recall what date in Jan-nary ? A. I don’t recall the exact date.

“Q. To refresh your recollection — A. I am positive about the first issue, because I wanted to start the beginning of the year; I believe it stated the mast head of the paper.

“Q. Your recollection is it was the first issue in January? A. Yes, sir, I am positive about.

“Q.

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

Related

Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP
159 So. 3d 15 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2011)
Holland v. City of Alabaster
595 So. 2d 483 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1991)
Siegelman v. Chase Manhattan Bank
575 So. 2d 1041 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1991)
Gulf Coast Media v. Mobile Press
470 So. 2d 1211 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1985)
State Ex Rel. Moore v. Strickland
268 So. 2d 766 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1972)
Hoefer v. Snellgrove
261 So. 2d 431 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1972)
Hunterdon County Democrat, Inc. v. Recorder Publishing Co.
285 A.2d 258 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1971)
State Ex Rel. Sun Co. v. Vigil
398 P.2d 987 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1965)
Cobbs v. Patterson
152 So. 2d 151 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1963)
Allen v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Company
368 S.W.2d 460 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1963)
Selman v. Bryant
72 So. 2d 704 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 So. 2d 845, 252 Ala. 250, 1949 Ala. LEXIS 403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vick-v-bishop-ala-1949.