Cochran & Ramsey v. Adler
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the City Court of Birmingham. Tried before Hon. W. W. Wilkerson. The facts are stated in the opinion. contended, that Cochran and Ramsey were bona ficle purchasers for value, and cited, Alston, v. Marshall, 112 Ala. 638; J ones v. Robinson, 77 Ala. 439; Davis v. Davis, 88 Ala. 523; Griffin v. Sail, 111 Ala. 601; Barton v. Barton, Ala. 523; Griwn v. Hall, 111 Ala. 601; Barton v. Barton, 75 Ala. 400; Milliken v. Faulk, 111 Ala. 658. A duly recorded mortgage upon…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the City Court of Birmingham. Tried before Hon. W. W. Wilkerson. The facts are stated in the opinion. contended, that Cochran and Ramsey were bona ficle purchasers for value, and cited, Alston, v. Marshall, 112 Ala. 638; J ones v. Robinson, 77 Ala. 439; Davis v. Davis, 88 Ala. 523; Griffin v. Sail, 111 Ala. 601; Barton v. Barton, Ala. 523; Griwn v. Hall, 111 Ala. 601; Barton v. Barton, 75 Ala. 400; Milliken v. Faulk, 111 Ala. 658. A duly recorded mortgage upon the- interest of the vendee holding the bond for title, is valid as against the original vendor and his subsequent…
1Opinion of the CourtTyson, J.
— The appellants filed their bill to foreclose a mortgage executed to them by Mrs. M. E. Freeman, dated March 31st, 1889, upon certain described real estate. The controversy is whether the Jefferson County Savings Bank and those claiming under it, through mesne conveyances, acquired such a title as is superior to the alleged rights claimed by complainants under their mortgage.
On the 23d day of August, 1887, Albert Adler, the owner of the lot in controversy, executed to Milow Rob*444•bins his bond for title, covenanting to execute to him, Robbins, a warranty deed to the lot upon the payment of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Peet & Co. v. HatcherSupreme Court of Alabama · 1895
- Brown v. ChambersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1848
3Cited by1 opinion
- Reid v. AllenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1913