Pitfield v. Gazzam
Supreme Court of Alabama
Writ of error to the Chancery Court, sitting at Mobile. This was a bill for the foreclosure of the equity of redemption in, and the sale of, mortgaged premises A subpcena was Served on one of the defendants to the bill, on the 23rd March 1840, on the other, on the 3'0th of April; and the decree was rendered on the 22nd May, referring it to the Master, to report the amount due to the mortgagee.
Read the full summary
Writ of error to the Chancery Court, sitting at Mobile. This was a bill for the foreclosure of the equity of redemption in, and the sale of, mortgaged premises A subpcena was Served on one of the defendants to the bill, on the 23rd March 1840, on the other, on the 3'0th of April; and the decree was rendered on the 22nd May, referring it to the Master, to report the amount due to the mortgagee. This report was made and confirmed on the 23rd of May, arid' the Master accordingly directed to sell the mortgage premises. It is now assigned for error, that a decree was rendered within less than…
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.
— It is clear that under our statute, regulating the practice in Chancery, it is not allowable for a complai'nant to have his bill takén pro confesso, until thirty days have elapsed, after the service of subpoena. Aik. Dig. 287. The decree of the Chancellor is consequently erroneous.
It is also insisted for the plaintiffs in error, that not only the decree which ordered a sale of the mortgaged premises, but the sale itself, is also irregular, and should be vacated.
In an ordinary case, the reversal of a decree does not affect the title of a purchaser acquired under it. Wyman, et al. v.…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Hale v. KinnairdSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
- Madden v. FloydSupreme Court of Alabama · 1881
- Richter v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1908
- Hurter v. RobbinsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1852