Legal Opinion

Smith v. Stringer

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided October 24, 1929No. 1 Div. 518PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.

The rule as to estoppel in the assertion of a right to property to the prejudice of innocent parties is well understood and need not be repeated. Ivy v. Hood, 202 Ala. 121, 79 So. 587; Federal Band Bank v. Southmont Co., 219 Ala. 447, 122 So. 426.

The preponderance of the evidence shows that appellant, or her agent acting for her in the purchase, was induced to the purchase and her prejudice by the assurance of mortgagee that the law day was or had been extended. He was bound by that assurance and estopped to declare due the debt and foreclose the mortgage to the prejudice of such recent…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Ivy v. HoodSupreme Court of Alabama · 1918
  2. Warner v. LucasOhio Supreme Court · 1840
  3. Bigler v. WallerSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
  4. Sloan v. FrothinghamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1882
  5. Bank of Moundville v. WalshSupreme Court of Alabama · 1927

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Alexander v. HicksSupreme Court of Alabama · 1942
  2. Goodwin v. DonohueSupreme Court of Alabama · 1934
  3. Duncan v. HubbardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
  4. Pridgen v. ElsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1941
  5. Atkinson v. KirbySupreme Court of Alabama · 1960

2 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