Keith v. McLaughlin

• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HARALSON, J.
• Citation: Keith v. McLaughlin, 21 So. 483, 114 Ala. 60 (Ala. 1897)
• Decision Date: 09 February 1897
• Parties: KEITH ET AL. v. MCLAUGHLIN ET AL.

21 So. 483

114 Ala. 60

KEITH ET AL. v. MCLAUGHLIN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 9, 1897

Appeal from chancery court, St. Clair county; S. K. McSpadden Chancellor.

Bill by Laura E. Keith and others against James M. McLaughlin and others for the redemption of lands.

This is the third appeal in the case, as is shown by the report on the former appeals, as found in 11 So. 447, 99 Ala. 60, and 16 So. 886, 105 Ala. 339, and special reference is here made to the facts of the case as therein set forth. The other facts necessary to an understanding of the decision on the present appeal are sufficiently stated in the opinion. On the final submission of the cause on the pleadings and proof, the chancellor decreed that the complainants were entitled to recover in part, as prayed for in their bill, and ordered a reference to the register to make and state an account ascertaining the amount due on the mortgage debt with interest thereon, charging the same against the complainants and also the taxes paid by defendants up to one year before the filing of the bill, and also the value of the permanent improvements thereon, not to exceed the value of the annual rents, which shall be a charge to complainants, and also to ascertain a reasonable rental of said lands for one year before the filing of said bill to be credited to said respondents. From this decree the complainants appeal, and assign the rendition thereof as error. Reversed.

M. M Smith, for appellants.

John W. Inzer and R. L. Brooks, for appellees.

HARALSON J.

The two former appeals in this case (99 Ala. 60, 11 So. 447, and 105 Ala. 339, 16 So. 886) settle the equities in favor of the complainants below, appellants here. They are the owners of the equity of redemption, by deed of conveyance from M. D. Goodwin, the mortgagor, given after he executed the mortgage. The attempted foreclosure of the mortgage by the mortgagees,-who were the administrators of James Forman, to whom the mortgagor was indebted,-before the law day of the mortgage, was inoperative and void as to complainants. The mortgagees, however, before the attempted foreclosure took possession of the premises, and after advertisement, attempted to sell the mortgaged property under the mortgage, on the 4th February, 1882. Keith bought at this sale, paid the price bid, $1,706, which was $705 more than the mortgage debt, and the mortgagees executed and delivered to Keith a warranty deed of conveyance to the land. He took possession and received the rents and profits until the 12th day of February, 1887, when he sold and conveyed them to T. T. Scott, for $6,100, who immediately took possession, and has continued in possession ever since, receiving rents and profits. This bill was filed on the 8th March, 1890, against the original mortgagees, James M. McLaughlin and W. S. Forman, T. T. Scott, and the heirs at law of the said James Forman, proper parties to the bill. Keith was not made a party. Mrs. Malissa D. Sullivan-who was the wife and widow of Goodwin, deceased, the mortgagor, to whom, with appellants, Goodwin, after his mortgage to McLaughlin and Forman, conveyed the land subject to his mortgage-was an original party complainant. The bill was amended by striking her out as a party. The object of the bill is to redeem the lands attempted to be sold by the mortgagees, and for an account against the mortgagees for rents and profits, to be applied in payment or reduction of the mortgage debt.

But one question is presented on this appeal,-that of the length of time the appellees shall account for rents and profits before the institution of this suit. Denying their liability to account for rents and profits at all, they set up in their...