Legal Opinion

Mallory v. Agee

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided October 6, 1932No. 7 Div. 126PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.

Reference has frequently been made to a conflict in the authorities as to whether an improvement, which can be removed without impairing the value of the realty as it existed at the time of the execution of a mortgage on it, may, by contract between the mortgagor and another, without the consent of the mortgagee, by which the right to its removal is attempted to be reserved in such other, be so effectually reserved as to free it from the mortgage pursuant to the terms of such contract. This conflict of authority is pointed out in Fuller-Warren Co. v. Harter, 110 Wis. 80, 85 N. W. 698, 53 L.…

2Cases cited41 opinions

  1. Binkley v. ForknerIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Fuller-Warren Co. v. HarterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
  3. Pierce v. GeorgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
  4. Harmon v. Dothan Nat. BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914
  5. Hill v. SewaldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1867

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Bailey Mortg. Co. v. Gobble-Fite Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1990
  2. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in Its Corporate Capacity v. Grady P. MorrisonCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1984
  3. Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. AtwoodTexas Supreme Court · 1951
  4. Lee v. MacOn County BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
  5. Sanchez v. McKinneySupreme Court of Alabama · 2011

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