Legal Opinion

Tervin v. Cordova State Bank

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 29, 1934No. 6 Div. 474PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

POSTER, Justice.

The bill in this case was filed to reform and foreclose a mortgage.

The respondents by answer allege the invalidity of the mortgage, and hence contend that the court will not reform or foreclose it, because the acknowledgments were taken before the cashier of the bank, which is the mortgagee. This contention can only be made by direct attack, and if we assume that the answer, not made a cross-bill praying for such relief is in this suit a direct attack (Jenkins v. Jonas Schwab Co., 138 Ala. 664, 35 So. 649), it is not available to respondents, because it is not the homestead of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Jenkins v. Jonas Schwab Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1903
  2. Williams v. RiddlespergerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
  3. Spink v. Guarantee B. & T. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1913
  4. Maddox v. WoodSupreme Court of Alabama · 1907
  5. Thompson v. Tower Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1893

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Patterson v. First Nat. Bank of PiedmontSupreme Court of Alabama · 1934
  2. Pruett v. Commercial Nat. Bank of AnnistonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1935
  3. Brittain v. Commercial Nat. Bank of AnnistonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1940

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API