Mobley v. Leophart
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Russell. Heard before the Hon. B. B. McCraw. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. 1. The decree pro confesso against the non-resident defendants must reverse the chancellor’s decree.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Russell. Heard before the Hon. B. B. McCraw. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. 1. The decree pro confesso against the non-resident defendants must reverse the chancellor’s decree. The recitals in it are not sufficient to sustain it. — Hartley v. Bloodgood, 16 Ala. 233; Boyiar v. Darden and Wife, 41 Ala. 322. 2. The publication itself was totally insufficient, being made in a newspaper published in Georgia. 3. Some of the complainants totally failed to prove their debts as alleged, and the bill ought to have been dismissed for that reason. —…
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, J.
This is a bill in chancery, filed by Leophart and others, to foreclose a mortgage, executed to them by one Earle on certain real and personal property, to secure sundry debts named in the mortgage to Leophart and others, as mortgagees, and to set aside and suspend the lien of a decree of the probate court of Barbour county, in this State, in favor of Mobley and his wife, for her use, rendered against said Earle, as the guardian of Mrs. Mobley, who was the daughter of Earle, and had intermarried with Mobley, upon the grounds, that said decree operated as a lien on the lands and other property…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Henderson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1908
- American Express Co. v. LankfordCourt Of Appeals Of Indian Territory · 1897
- Kelley v. WeberNew York Supreme Court · 1880