Bond v. Oates
| Decision Date | 30 June 1920 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 863 |
| Citation | 204 Ala. 666,87 So. 173 |
| Parties | BOND v. OATES. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 18, 1920
Appeal from Circuit Court, Henry County; H.A. Pearce, Judge.
Bill by J.T. Bond against William C. Oates to restrain the foreclosure of a mortgage for an accounting and to redeem. From a decree denying relief, complainant appeals. Affirmed.
Lee & Tompkins and Farmer, Merrill & Farmer, all of Dothan, for appellant.
Hill Hill, Whiting & Thomas, of Montgomery, and D.C. Halstead, of Headland, for appellee.
The appellant filed this bill against appellee, seeking to assert and effect the equity of redemption created by a mortgage executed in the year 1909 by appellant to appellee's father, William C. Oates, Sr., who died in 1910, to secure an indebtedness of $16,000. Incidental to this paramount object of the bill, temporary injunction was prayed and was issued to restrain the appellee from foreclosing the mortgage under the power of sale provided therein. On motion of appellee (Code, § 4535), the injunction was dissolved, and this appeal presents that action for review.
Several years after this mortgage was executed to appellee's testator, Gen. Oates, the appellant, gave the American Agricultural Chemical Company a second mortgage on the property described in the Oates mortgage. Prior to the filing of this bill the mortgage to the chemical company was foreclosed by decree, the chemical company purchasing at the sale. This foreclosure effected to divest appellant mortgagor to Oates, of all interest in or title to the land described in the mortgage to Oates, including appellant's equity of redemption resulting from the mortgage to Oates. Sibley v. Linton Coal Co., 193 Ala. 182, 184, 185, 69 So. 1; Arnold v. Black, 87 So. 170. The appellant had two years in which to exercise his right of statutory redemption (Code, § 5746) from the decretal foreclosure of the chemical company mortgage. This he did not do.
According to appellant's affidavit, with the exhibit to be quoted, the property was purchased by appellant's wife, no redemption being contemplated or accomplished. The exhibit reads:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rice v. Davidson
... ... Franklin v ... Long, 191 Ala. 310, 315, 68 So. 149; Consumers' Coal ... & Fuel Co. v. Yarbrough, 194 Ala. 482, 491, ... [89 So. 601] Bond v. Oates, 204 Ala. 666, 87 So ... 173, 174; Woodstock Operating Corp. v. Quinn, supra ... In the ... general exercise of jurisdiction ... ...
-
Rumage v. Dry Dock Sav. Bank
...in which they had no interest. Rapier v. Gulf City Paper Co., supra; Cardwell v. Virginia State Ins. Co., supra. See Bond v. Oates, 204 Ala. 666, 87 So. 173. A cause should be at issue when final decree is rendered but where, as here, the cross bill presented substantially what was already ......
-
Huie v. Smith
...the mortgagor executes a second mortgage which is foreclosed, and the period expires for redemption without its exercise. Bond v. Oates, 204 Ala. 666, 87 So. 173; Hart Jackson Street Baptist Church, 224 Ala. 64, 139 So. 88. But this does not affect the rights of persons named in the statute......
-
Wachter v. Leeth Nat. Bank
...that right after the expiration of the period of the right to redeem from it. Huie v. Smith, 236 Ala. 516(8), 183 So. 661; Bond v. Oates, 204 Ala. 666, 87 So. 173; Hart Jackson Street Baptist Church, 224 Ala. 64, 139 So. 88. In this instance, this appellee was the purchaser at both sales. T......