Wells v. American Mortgage Co.

123 Ala. 413
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided November 15, 1898·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinions

TYSON, J.

The other members of the court are of opinion, that by sheer force of the statute, a claim for decree over for any balance of the mortgage debt left after the application thereto of the proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged property, is within the Us pendens of every foreclosure suit from the moment of its institution, and, of consequence, that, while it is necessary for the complainant to move for such decree over after the balance has been fixed and ascertained, no notice of such motion need be given to the respondent: He has notice of complainant’s claim in that regard, and of his right to make such motion in the contingency named and that it will be made, from the first, just as lie has notice of all other relief the complainant may be or become entitled to in the cause. — Code, § 859, and cases there cited. It follows that the decree must be affirmed. .•

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

Wells v. American Mortgage Co., 123 Ala. 413 (Ala. 1898).

123 Ala. 413 (Wells v. American Mortgage Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hamill v. McCalla
153 So. 412 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1934)
Hall v. Noble
111 So. 14 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1927)
Ex Parte Alabama Brokerage Co.
94 So. 87 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)
Averyt Drug Co. v. Ely-Robertson-Barlow Drug Co.
69 So. 931 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1915)
Harper v. Raisin Fert. Co.
48 So. 589 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1908)
Baggett v. Alabama Chemical Co.
47 So. 102 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1908)
Harper v. Raisin Fertilizer Co.
42 So. 550 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1906)
Hainey v. State
41 So. 968 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1906)
McQueen v. Whetstone
127 Ala. 417 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1900)