Mullens v. American Freehold Land & Mortg. Co.
| Decision Date | 30 January 1890 |
| Citation | 88 Ala. 280,7 So. 201 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Parties | MULLENS ET AL. v. AMERICAN FREEHOLD LAND & MORTGAGE CO. |
Appeal from chancery court, Pickens county; THOMAS W. COLEMAN, Judge.
Watts & Son, J. C. Johnston, and E. D. Willett, for appellants.
D. C. Hods, for appellee.
The appellee, the American Freehold Land & Mortgage Company of London, is a foreign corporation duly incorporated under the laws of Great Britain, and files the bill to foreclose a mortgage executed by appellant on certain lands in the county of Pickens, in this state. The averment of the bill is that complainant has complied with the laws of the state of Alabama which authorize a foreign corporation to do business in this state. Construing the bill most strongly against complainant, it shows with sufficient certainty that the notes and mortgage were executed and delivered in Alabama. In Farrior v. Security Co., ante, 200, (decided at the present term,) the averment of the bill was that the corporation complainant has a duly-constituted agent, and a known place of business, in Alabama. It was held that the bill must be construed as averring that the company had a duly-constituted agent, and a known place of business, in this state only when the suit was commenced, and not when the money was loaned or the mortgage taken, and therefore was not an averment that the corporation had a duly-constituted agent and known place of business when the transaction took place, as required by the constitution and statute, and for this reason that the demurrer to the bill was erroneously overruled. On the authority of that case, the decree of the chancellor overruling the demurrer to the present bill must be reversed. Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kellogg v. National Protective Ins. Co.
...Co. v. Wyland, 69 Kan. 255; Alabama (Sec. 232); Nelms v. E.A.L.M. Co., 92 Ala. 157; Farrior v. N.E. Mtg. Sec. Co., 88 Ala, 275; Mullens v. Mtg. Co., 88 Ala. 280; Dundee Mtg. Co. v. Nixon, 95 Ala. 318; Guin v. N.E. Mtg. Sec. Co., 92 Ala. 135; State v. Bristol Bank, 108 Ala. 3; Chattanooga Bu......
-
Kellogg v. National Protective Ins. Co.
...v. Wyland, 69 Kan. 255; Alabama (Sec. 232); Nelms v. E. A. L. M. Co., 92 Ala. 157; Farrior v. N.E. Mtg. Sec. Co., 88 Ala, 275; Mullens v. Mtg. Co., 88 Ala. 280; Dundee Mtg. Co. v. Nixon, 95 Ala. 318; Guin v. N.E. Mtg. Sec. Co., 92 Ala. 135; State v. Bristol Bank, 108 Ala. 3; Chattanooga Bui......
-
State, to use of Hart-Parr Co. v. Robb-Lawrence Co.
...is as illegal as many. 6 Thompson on Corporations, section 7937, page 6317; Farrior v. Mortgage Company, 88 Ala. 275; Mullins v. American Freehold Company, 88 Ala. 280; Iowa Falls Mfg. Co. v. Farrar, OPINION ENGERUD, J. The defendant Robb-Lawrence Company is a public warehouseman, duly lice......
-
Redfield v. First Nat. Bank
... ... S.W. 1112, 50 Tex. Civ. App. 468; American Can Co ... v. Grassi Contracting Co. , 168 N.Y.S. 689, ... , ... 73 S.W. 969, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 76; Cumberland Land ... Co. v. Canter Lbr. Co. (Tenn. Ch. App.) 35 S.W ... Civ. App. 169; ... Christian v. American Freehold Land Co. , 7 ... So. 427, 89 Ala. 198; Mullens v ... ...