Woolen v. Taylor
Decision Date | 22 May 1941 |
Docket Number | 2 Div. 173. |
Parties | WOOLEN v. TAYLOR et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 5, 1941.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Hale County; John Miller, Judge.
M. B. Grace, of Birmingham, for appellant.
W. R. Withers and W. P. Gewin, both of Greensboro for appellees.
The appeal seeks a review of the decree of the court sustaining demurrers to the bill to redeem and set aside foreclosure deed and for an accounting. The amended bill is aided by the exhibit of mortgage and auctioneer's deed. Among other things it is averred:
It is insisted by appellant that a valid foreclosure destroys the equity of redemption and creates the statutory right of redemption. To effectuate a valid redemption, it is incumbent upon the mortgagor to tender to the mortgagee the proper amount of money. If the mortgagee should be in need of the money invested in the purchase of the property, and agree with the mortgagor to accept less than what he paid for the property at foreclosure, that agreement is not an agreement with reference to the sale of real estate, but is one incident to the redemption of the property. It is the exercise of a personal right of contract. If the mortgagor accepts the proposal and duly tenders to the mortgagee the amount of money he agreed to accept in lieu of foreclosure, and the mortgagee refuses to accept it on any ground other than the insufficiency of the amount, in a bill to redeem the property, the averments of the oral agreement will be sufficient to give the bill equity, and without it, the bill will not contain equity.
This Court has held a parol agreement by a mortgagee, after foreclosure, to accept something else than money in payment of the indebtedness, is not an agreement with respect to a conveyance of land and is not void as being within the statute of frauds. Code of 1923, §§ 8032-8050, Code 1940, Tit. 20, §§ 1-17; Tit. 7, §§ 108, 109. See Abbeville Live Stock Co. v. Walden, 209 Ala. 315, 96 So. 237; McKenzie v. Stewart et al., 196 Ala. 241, 72 So. 109; Lehman, Durr & Co. v. Marshall, 47 Ala. 362. As to extending the time for redemption, we will examine the cases.
A bill in equity must contain allegations of all facts necessary to show complainant's right to redemption and to the relief that is sought in the prayer. The question of immediate importance, presented by the sustaining of demurrer to the bill as amended, is whether or not a parol agreement by a mortgagee after foreclosure to accept payment in other things than money or of a less sum of money than that which is actually due under the foreclosure and to effectuate redemption under the statute, is an agreement with respect to a conveyance or redemption of land that is void under the statute of frauds. Code of 1923, §§ 8032, 8034, Code 1940, Tit. 20, §§ 1, 3.
The statute of frauds comes to us from the common law and was incorporated in our earliest statutes. Sichel v. Mosenthal, 30 Beav. 371, 8 Jur.N.S. 275, 18 Eng. Rule.Cas. 282; Aikin's Digest, p. 206, § 1. Under this statute, this court declared at an early date that the time of redeeming may be extended by parol agreement beyond that expressed in the mortgage. Deshazo v. Lewis, 5 Stew. & P. 91, 24 Am. Dec. 769; 19 R.C.L. p. 306, § 82.
There are several decisions by this court relative to the question presently before us. In Abbeville Live Stock Co. v. Walden, 209 Ala. 315, 96 So. 237, the facts were that the action was by a mortgagee in detinue for a mule against the purchaser thereof from mortgagor, who had sold the animal pursuant to the verbal instruction of mortgagee. There was conflict in the evidence as to the terms of mortgagee's consent to the sale, and the mortgage contained the provision that "none of the property conveyed herein shall be disposed of by the mortgagor without the consent in writing of the mortgagee or its assignee." The general rule of contract and stipulations solely for the benefit of one party may be waived by such party, and in the absence of statutory provisions may be modified by a subsequent oral agreement, is applied. The statute was adverted to that a mortgage of personal property is not valid unless made in writing and subscribed by the mortgagor, and that the statute of fraud as to real property and that prohibiting parol mortgages of personal property forbid "that the same be varied by parol." It is said that the general rule that obtains in such matters is that, * * *"
In the case of Abbeville Live Stock Co. v. Walden, supra, 209 Ala. 315, 316, 96 So. 237, 238, the earlier decisions in Lehman, Durr & Co. v. Marshall, 47 Ala. 362, 369, 376, are adverted to, as follows: "In Lehman, Durr & Co. v. Marshall, 47 Ala.
362, 369, 376, it was permitted to be shown that, though there was a note evidencing the debt, payable in money and secured by a mortgage, by verbal contract between the mortgagee and the mortgagor, if the latter delivered in the name of the former, at a warehouse to be named by him, a sufficient quantity of cotton at the agreed price per pound to pay the note secured by the mortgage, the mortgagee would accept the cotton in payment of the note; held, that such verbal agreement did not destroy the legal effect of the note, and that the mortgagee was bound by this agreement as to the nature of payment. The effect of this decision was that it was competent for the parties to a mortgage by parol agreement to change the time, mode, or the medium of payment, without in any way impairing the mortgage security. Lehman, Durr & Co. v. Marshall, supra ( ); Belloc v. Davis, 38 Cal. 242 ( ); Contributors to Pennsylvania Hospital v. Gibson, 2 Miles (Pa.) 324 (agreement to accept part of principal before it was due); Williams v. Starr, 5 Wis. 534 (agreement to change the time and mode of payment). See, also, Morse v. Clayton, 13 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 373; Davis v. Maynard, 9 Mass. 242; Hadlock v. Bulfinch, 31 Me. 246; Burdett & Co. v. Clay, 8 B. Mon. [Ky.] 287, 295; Pond v. Clarke, 14 Conn. 334."
It will be noted that in McKenzie v. Stewart, 196 Ala. 241, 72 So. 109, that a mortgage on real estate, payable in money, was the subject of the controversy and the specific agreement of performance as to payment was fifteen shares of corporation stock in lieu of the $1,500 in money in satisfaction of the mortgage and note for that amount, and such was held to be without the statute of frauds, Code § 8034, when treated as a bill for redemption.
The subject of the modification of a contract by parol is treated at great length in 17 A.L.R. p. 7, and touching the phase of the subject as to payment, it is stated that:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Weatherwax v. Heflin
...& Co. v. [S. S.] Dale & Sons, 122 Miss. 430, 84 So. 453; compare, McKenzie v. Stewart, 196 Ala. 241, 72 So. 109." In Woolen v. Taylor et al., 241 Ala. 316, 2 So.2d 413, where the bill was to redeem land sold under foreclosure and to set aside foreclosure deed and for accounting, the many au......
- Woolen v. Taylor
-
Thompson v. Suttle
...of frauds and to avoid the action must be based on fraud, that amounts to an estoppel, to plead the statute. For example, in Woolen v. Taylor et al., supra, it was shown the mortgagees after foreclosure agreed with the mortgagor to permit redemption for a less sum than that paid at foreclos......
-
Woolen v. Taylor
...of the land involved in the suit was in writing; and is therefore void as being contrary to the statute of frauds." 241 Ala. at page 322, 2 So.2d at page 418. The agreement referred to in that ruling related a verbal contract or agreement between the purchaser at the foreclosure sale and th......