Lacy v. Fowler
Decision Date | 27 October 1921 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 165. |
Citation | 206 Ala. 679,91 So. 593 |
Parties | LACY v. FOWLER ET AL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 24, 1921.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Hugh A. Locke, Judge.
Bill by S. L. Lacy against T. O. Fowler and another to redeem land from mortgage foreclosure sale. From a decree sustaining demurrers to the bill, complainant appeals. Affirmed.
A Latady, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Erle Pettus, of Birmingham, for appellees.
The bill of complaint, as last amended, presents two prayers for relief in the alternative, the two aspects of the bill being founded on inconsistent states of facts, charged as true only in the alternative. As to such bills, it has been held that "each alternative must show a right of action." A. C. L. R. Co. v. Woolfolk, 178 Ala. 190, 59 So 633. And, there being no positive affirmation of the truth of either set of facts, any demurrable defect in either alternative aspect may be properly reached by a demurrer addressed to the bill as a whole.
In this view, without passing upon the sufficiency of the bill in its second aspect, the trial court sustained the demurrer to the bill as last amended, on the ground that, as to its first alternative aspect, the allegations of fact were insufficient. We think the ruling of the court was free from error.
A bill for statutory redemption from a purchaser at mortgage foreclosure sale, or his grantee, must show that the respondent is such a purchaser or grantee, in privity with the mortgage title; and also it must show a payment into court of the redemption money previously tendered. The allegation that the respondents Betty Scott and A. J Holcombe jointly own and control the property does not show that they hold it in privity with the mortgage, as purchasers or grantees thereunder.
And the allegation that complainant tendered to said Holcombe the purchase money with 10 per cent., and all other lawful charges, imposes upon complainant the duty of bringing the money into court as a prerequisite to redemptive relief. The statute (Code, § 5751) relieves a complainant of that duty only when he does not know the amount that is due, and the purchaser of his grantee has failed, for 10 days after written demand, to furnish him with an itemized statement of the debt and all lawful charges, as required by section 5748. In each of these particulars, the bill, in its alternative aspect for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Emp. v. Dawkins
...other words, a chain is no stronger than its weakest link. Pickens County v. National Surety Co., 229 Ala. 191, 155 So. 620; Lacy v. Fowler, 206 Ala. 679, 91 So. 593; Cudd v. Wood, 205 Ala. 682, 89 So. 52; Union Cemetery Co. v. Jackson, 188 Ala. 599, 65 So. 986; Shannon v. Long, 180 Ala. 12......
-
Hargett v. Franklin County
...Ala. 104, 67 So. 668; Snow v. Montesano Land Co., 206 Ala. 310, 311, 89 So. 719; Hamilton v. Cody, 206 Ala. 102, 89 So. 240; Lacy v. Fowler, 206 Ala. 679, 91 So. 593. It further declared that redemption cannot be effected by "piecemeal," but of the entire tract sold ( Slaughter v. Webb, 205......
-
Givianpour v. Curtain
...].“And in addition to alleging a tender, the bill must show payment into court, where such payment is not excused. Lacey [sic ] v. Fowler, 206 Ala. 679, 91 So. 593 [ (1921) ]. See Wittmeier v. Cranford, supra.“A mortgagor seeking to redeem is excused from alleging a tender where he avers th......
-
Godfrey v. Black
... ... failed after due demand to furnish him with an itemized ... statement as required by section 10144, Code (Lacy v ... Fowler, 206 Ala. 679, 91 So. 593; section 10147, Code), ... or when the statement is so exaggerated, illegal or disputed ... as that he ... ...