Lang v. Stansel
Decision Date | 23 April 1895 |
Citation | 17 So. 519,106 Ala. 389 |
Parties | LANG ET UX. v. STANSEL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Pickens county; S. H. Sprott, Judge.
Action of ejectment by M. L. Stansel against Bennett M. Lang and wife. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
The defendants pleaded the general issue, and the following special plea: "That, at the time the lands in this suit were sold under the deed of trust in this case, there was no contract in writing evidencing said sale and purchase, and the same is void under the statute of frauds." To this special plea the plaintiff filed the following replication "Comes the plaintiff, and, for replication to the plea of the defendants herein, says that at the sale of the lands described in this cause there was a memorandum of said sale kept, showing the property sold, the name of the purchaser the name of the person for whose account said sale was made together with the terms of said sale; that said memorandum was in writing, and was kept by the auctioneer, his clerk or agent, and a deed was at once executed to the purchaser." On the trial of the cause, as is shown by the bill of exceptions, the plaintiff introduced in evidence the following deed of trust: The defendants objected to the introduction of this deed in evidence, on the grounds that whatever rights were conveyed by said instrument could only be enforced in a court of chancery, and that the same were not cognizable in a court of law. The court overruled this motion, and allowed the deed to be introduced in evidence, and to this ruling the defendants duly excepted. Plaintiff also introduced in evidence a written instrument executed by the heirs at law of Alberta Lang, deceased, in which they appointed and constituted I. R. Hinton the trustee of said trust, to sell the lands mentioned in the trust deed. Defendants objected to the introduction in evidence of this instrument in writing on the ground that there was no power in said mortgage or deed of trust for such appointment and sale. The court overruled the objection, and the defendants duly excepted. Plaintiff also introduced evidence showing that I. R. Hinton, the trustee named by said appointment, and heirs at law of Alberta Lang, deceased, advertised the lands in the deed of trust for sale for three successive weeks in a newspaper published in Pickens county, and on May 6, 1889, after more than 30 days' notice, sold said lands in front of the courthouse of the county of Pickens (that being the time and place of sale named in the advertisement) and that at this sale M. L. Stansel...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barksdale v. Strickland & Hazard
...regulates the exercise of the power, it will be assumed that the principles of common law obtain, in respect thereto. Lang et al. v. Stansel, 106 Ala. 389, 17 So. 519; R. C. L. § 405, p. 590. Powers of sale in mortgages or deeds of trust are of two kinds-naked powers and powers coupled with......
-
Jackson v. Tribble
... ... There is no express authority ... given in the mortgage to the mortgagee to make title to the ... purchaser. But, as was said in Lang v. Stansel, 106 ... Ala. 389, 397, 17 So. 519, 521, "though the conveyance ... is silent as to the execution by him (the mortgagee) of a ... ...
- Williams v. Woodward Iron Co.
-
McNeill v. Lee
...592; Williams v. Otey, 8 Hum. (Tenn.), 568; Vallentine v. Piper, 22 Pick. (Mass.), 75; Lindley v. O'Reilly, 50 N. J. (Law), 636; Long v. Stansel, 106 Ala. 389; on Mortgages (4th ed.), sec. 1889. A careful reading of Woods v. Rozelle, 75 Miss. 782, relied upon by appellant, will disclose tha......