Slaughter v. Doe ex dem. Swift, Murphy & Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Ejectment by Mortgages. 4. Payment of mortgage debt, as defense to action by mortgagee. —TJuder a mortgage of chattels, payment of the mortgage debt, before action brought, will defeat a recovery ; but, in reference to mortgages of real estate, this court has adopted a different rule, and holds the mortgagee en itled to recover at law, as against the mortgagor and those claiming under him, whenever the mortgage is silent as to his right to take possession, or when-the period…
Read the full summary
Ejectment by Mortgages. 4. Payment of mortgage debt, as defense to action by mortgagee. —TJuder a mortgage of chattels, payment of the mortgage debt, before action brought, will defeat a recovery ; but, in reference to mortgages of real estate, this court has adopted a different rule, and holds the mortgagee en itled to recover at law, as against the mortgagor and those claiming under him, whenever the mortgage is silent as to his right to take possession, or when-the period has expived during which the right of possession is reserved to the mortgagor, and payment- of the debt will not defeat…
1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.
— The declaration in the present action counts on two demises; one by Charles J. Swift, and the other by George P. Swift, senior, George P. Swift, junior, and Samuel G. Murphy, styling themselves partners using the firm name of Swift, Murphy & Co. At law, a 'title conveyed to a, partnership in its firm name, vests in the several partners as tenants in common.— Caldwell v. Parmer, 56 Ala. 405. Testimony was offered by plaintiff, tending to prove title under the latter, but inapplicable to the first named demise. Objection by 'defendant to the admissibility of the evidence under the first…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Hitchcock v. HarringtonNew York Supreme Court · 1810
- Welsh v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
- Coyle v. WilkinsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1876
- Petty v. DillSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
- Goldsmith, Forcheimer & Co. v. PicardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1855
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Chambers v. RingstaffSupreme Court of Alabama · 1881
- Bynum v. GoldSupreme Court of Alabama · 1894
- Farris & McCurdy v. HoustonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1883
- Frost v. WolfTexas Supreme Court · 1890
- Farris v. HoustonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.