44 So. 554 (Ala. 1907), Edinburgh American Land Mortg. Co. v. Grant

Citation:44 So. 554, 152 Ala. 456
Opinion Judge:HARALSON, J.
Party Name:EDINBURGH AMERICAN LAND MORTG. CO., LIMITED, ET AL. v. GRANT.
Attorney:Hugh Nelson and Pettus, Jeffries & Pettus, for appellants. William Cunningham, for appellee.
Judge Panel:TYSON, C.J., and SIMPSON and DENSON, JJ., concur.
Case Date:July 02, 1907
Court:Supreme Court of Alabama
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 554

44 So. 554 (Ala. 1907)

152 Ala. 456

EDINBURGH AMERICAN LAND MORTG. CO., LIMITED, ET AL.

v.

GRANT.

Supreme Court of Alabama

July 2, 1907

Appeal from Chancery Court, Marengo County; Thomas H. Smith, Chancellor.

Bill by William Grant against the Edinburgh American Land Mortgage Company and others. From a decree dismissing the cross-bill of the Mortgage Company, and refusing to dismiss the bill, defendants appeal. Reversed, rendered, and affirmed in part.

The averments of the bill are that on the 26th day of September, 1893, A. Lawson recovered a judgment in the circuit court of Marengo county for the sum of $352.70 and $9.65 costs, which is still due and unpaid; that on June 23, 1894, the said Lawson caused to be filed and registered a certificate of the said judgment in the office of the probate judge of Marengo county, and which said judgment was registered by him in a book for that purpose; that on the ______ day of September, 1901, said Lawson for a valuable consideration assigned, transferred, and set over to orator a judgment and the lien thereto. It is averred that the defendants each own or claim some interest or title to certain lands in the county belonging to P. N. Askew, but that that claim or title is subordinate to the lien of the recorded judgment, and the prayer is that the lands be subjected to the satisfaction of the lien. The Edinburgh American Land Mortgage Company filed a cross-bill, setting up their claim, which was a mortgage on the land, and asserting its priority over the lien. The cross-bill also prays for a correction of a mistake in the mortgage and for a confirmation of the foreclosure sale thereunder. The certificate of judgment is sufficiently described in the opinion. The chancellor declined to dismiss the bill for want of equity, but on motion dismissed the cross-bill, from both of which orders this appeal is prosecuted.

Hugh Nelson and Pettus, Jeffries & Pettus, for appellants.

William Cunningham, for appellee.

HARALSON, J.

Section 1920 of the Code of 1896 requires the certificate by the clerk of a judgment to show the style of the court rendering the judgment, the amount and date thereof, the amount of costs, the names of the parties and the names of the plaintiff's attorney, which certificate shall be registered (recorded) by the judge of probate in a book kept by him for that purpose, which register (book)...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP