Legal Opinion

Dudley v. Colonial Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 5, 1931No. 5 Div. 81PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

It is well settled that a mortgagor in possession, before foreclosure under the power may without tender, upon offer in his bill to do equity, maintain a bill to protect and enforce his equity of redemption, and a foreclosure pendente lite does not affect his right to relief, and in a proper case may have an Accounting. The allegations of the bill were sufficient to bring the case within these principles. Williams v. Noland, 205 Ala. 63, 87 So. 818; Ezzell v. First National Bank of Russellville, 218 Ala. 462, 119 So. 2; Boyd et al. v. Dent, 216 Ala. 171, 113 So. 11, 15; Blue v. First National…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Houghton v. BurdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  2. Thomas v. BarnesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
  3. Ezzell v. First Nat. Bank of RussellvilleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
  4. Seeberg v. NorvilleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
  5. McGar v. AdamsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Shaffer v. Regions Financial Corp.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2009
  2. Lauderdale v. Peace Baptist ChurchSupreme Court of Alabama · 1944
  3. Edwards v. Allied Home Mortg. Capital Corp.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2007
  4. De Moville v. Merchants & Farmers BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1939
  5. Sevigny v. NEW SOUTH FEDERAL SAV. & LOANSupreme Court of Alabama · 1991

16 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