Legal Opinion · Dissent

Constantine v. US Fidelity & Guar. Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided April 28, 1989No. 87-1163Published

1Dissent

I can not agree that the principles of collateral estoppel apply to bar this claim.

Defendants' principal argument is that plaintiff's own initial negligence and subsequent failure to take steps to avoid the effect of the mortgage were the cause of her injury. Plaintiff signed the mortgage before it was presented to the notary. The notary has no duty to stop someone from signing something of which the notary is unaware. The acknowledgement is a substitute for having two witnesses, Code 1975, § 35-4-23, and the instrument would still serve as the basis for an equitable, as opposed to a legal,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Interstate Electric Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1934
  2. Rhodes v. SchofieldSupreme Court of Alabama · 1955
  3. Constantine v. First Alabama Bank of BirminghamCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1984

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

Powered by the Exa API