Hollinger v. Branch Bank at Mobile
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Chancery Court of Mobile.
1Opinion of the Court
ORMOND, J..
This was a bill to foreclose a mortgage upon which the ordinary decree was made. The only objections now urged against it are, that the subpoena was served on Mrs. *606Hollinger only five days previous to the decree, and that there is no sufficient allegation in the bill, that the debt was not paid.
The first objection depends upon the construction of the 4th rule of Chancery practice, which declares, that “ Femes covert-may be made defendants, by service of subpoena upon their husbands,” unless th,e object of the bill is to affect the separate estate of the wife. It is insisted, that…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hodges v. WiseSupreme Court of Alabama · 1849
- Walker v. SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1856
- Evans v. MeylertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1852