Williams v. Rouse

Supreme Court of Alabama

Williams v. Rouse

124 Ala. 160

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedNovember 15, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 124 Ala. 160 (Williams v. Rouse) 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

Williams v. Rouse, 124 Ala. 160 (Ala. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

SITABPE, J.

— 1. Standing in the relation of a judgment creditor, the complainant Avas not required as a redemptioner to pay the mortgage debt remaining after foreclosure. This conclusion is in accordance with the decision in First National Bank of Anniston v. Elliott, at present term, where the reasons for it are given.

2. The Amine of permanent improvements made by the purchaser is one of the charges AAdiich must be paid or tendered in order to perfect the statutory right to redeem land. — Code, § 3517. There is no proAdsion in the present statute under AAdiich one offering to redeem can reduce this charge by setting off against it rents or profits accruing to the purchaser before the offer to redeem. The dictum to the contrary found in Parmer v. Parmer, 74 Ala. 285, is incorrect, and seems to have been based upon the cases of Weathers v. Spears and Spool v. Phillips, in 27 Ala., AAdiich arose under the earlier statute AAdiich provided for such set-off, — Olay’s Dig, 502,

[162]*162The right of redemption which the bill seeks to enforce can be perfected and made capable of enforcement only by compliance with the terms of the statutes which create the right or by showing a valid excuse for non-compliance. — Cramer v. Watson, 73 Ala. 127. In failing to offer defendant the value of the improvements there has not been such compliance with the statute as entitled him to redeem. The ground of demurrer based on such failure was well assigned and justifies the decree.

Affirmed.

Tyson, J., dissenting as to the first proposition.

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

SITABPE, J.

— 1. Standing in the relation of a judgment creditor, the complainant Avas not required as a redemptioner to pay the mortgage debt remaining after foreclosure. This conclusion is in accordance with the decision in First National Bank of Anniston v. Elliott, at present term, where the reasons for it are given.

2. The Amine of permanent improvements made by the purchaser is one of the charges AAdiich must be paid or tendered in order to perfect the statutory right to redeem land. — Code, § 3517. There is no proAdsion in the present statute under AAdiich one offering to redeem can reduce this charge by setting off against it rents or profits accruing to the purchaser before the offer to redeem. The dictum to the contrary found in Parmer v. Parmer, 74 Ala. 285, is incorrect, and seems to have been based upon the cases of Weathers v. Spears and Spool v. Phillips, in 27 Ala., AAdiich arose under the earlier statute AAdiich provided for such set-off, — Olay’s Dig, 502,

[162]*162The right of redemption which the bill seeks to enforce can be perfected and made capable of enforcement only by compliance with the terms of the statutes which create the right or by showing a valid excuse for non-compliance. — Cramer v. Watson, 73 Ala. 127. In failing to offer defendant the value of the improvements there has not been such compliance with the statute as entitled him to redeem. The ground of demurrer based on such failure was well assigned and justifies the decree.

Affirmed.

Tyson, J., dissenting as to the first proposition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 Ala. 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-rouse-ala-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack