Glidden v. Andrews
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from a decree of the Court of Chancery for the 1st District, Southern Division. Andrew's filed a petition, in which he set out that he was the purchaser of certain premises sold on the 1st day of June; 1843, under a decree of foreclosure made in a suit in equity, wherein he and two others, as partners under the firm of Andrews & Brothers, were complainants ; and Basil Meslier, the mortgagor, Jonathan S. Beers, Adolph Batre, the New Orleans and Cafrol-ton Railroad…
Read the full summary
Appeal from a decree of the Court of Chancery for the 1st District, Southern Division. Andrew's filed a petition, in which he set out that he was the purchaser of certain premises sold on the 1st day of June; 1843, under a decree of foreclosure made in a suit in equity, wherein he and two others, as partners under the firm of Andrews & Brothers, were complainants ; and Basil Meslier, the mortgagor, Jonathan S. Beers, Adolph Batre, the New Orleans and Cafrol-ton Railroad Company, and several others named therein, were defendants. That he is informed, Gliddon claims to have a lien upon a…
1Opinion of the CourtGoldthwaite, J.
One of our rules for the regulation of chancery practice, directs that, “ if it shall be discovered that there are subsequent incumbrancers, or parties in interest, not made parties to the cause, at any time before the confirmation of the sale in any mortgage suit, the complainant, or purchaser, shall have liberty to bring them before the court at that stage of the proceedings; and if they make no opposition by answer, their interest may be foreclosed without a re-sale of the property.” [Clay’s Digest, 615, §26.]
By the usual course of chancery practice, when a necessary party defendant is…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Gliddon v. Andrews & Bros.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1848