Legal Opinion

Hamill v. McCalla

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 11, 1934No. 6 Div. 376Published

1Opinion

On Rehearing.

FOSTER, Justice.

The rule which we quoted from Winston v. Browning, supra, to exist in Alabama, was in accordance with the well-settled practice in equity then in existence. The only procedure to secure a personal judgment for the deficiency after foreclosure'was a suit at law. 1 Wiltse on Mortgage Foreclosures, §§ 411, 412; 42 C. J. 58. The statute gave a new right. Teal v. Lewis, 85 Ala. 218, 4 So. 695; Presley v. McLean, 80 Ala. 309. We quote as follows from the latter;

“The effect and operation of the statute are, to confer on the Chancery Courts new and additional power and…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Prout v. HogeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1876
  2. Sayre v. Elyton Land Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1882
  3. Langley v. AndrewsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1902
  4. Hughes v. Hatchett & TrimbleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1876
  5. Crawford v. Chattanooga Savings BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API