Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hinesley v. Davidson

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 16, 1981No. 79-201Published

1DissentTorbert, Chief Justice

I respectfully dissent.

Generally, in a suit for possession of land brought by a remainderman, neither the defense of laches nor the running of the statute of limitations, during pendency of the life estate, is available to the defendant. Hammond v. Shipp, 292 Ala. 113, 289 So.2d 802 (1974). An exception to the rule, however, was thoroughly discussed in Duncan v. Johnson, 338 So.2d 1243 (Ala.1976). For the following reasons, I believe the instant case falls squarely within the exception.

I

In Alabama, a mortgage operates in law as a conveyance, transferring to the mortgagee the estate of the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Oxford v. EstesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1934
  2. Woodstock Iron Co. v. FullenwiderSupreme Court of Alabama · 1888
  3. Trauner v. LowreySupreme Court of Alabama · 1979
  4. Duncan v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1976
  5. Ward v. ChamblessSupreme Court of Alabama · 1939

9 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