Sewell v. Buyck
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from Elmore Chancery Court. Heard before Hon. W. W. Whiteside. Bill by James Buyck against N. B. Sewell, to have a deed absolute on its face declared a mortgage, and cancelled, and for re-conveyance. Respondent filed a cross bill seeking to foreclose. Decree for complainant and respondent appeals.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Elmore Chancery Court. Heard before Hon. W. W. Whiteside. Bill by James Buyck against N. B. Sewell, to have a deed absolute on its face declared a mortgage, and cancelled, and for re-conveyance. Respondent filed a cross bill seeking to foreclose. Decree for complainant and respondent appeals. The burden of proof ivas on the complainant, and if tlie mind is left in a state of doubt and uncertainly, the burden is not carried. — Douglas v. Eason, 36 Ala. 687; Lehman Bros. v. McQueen, 65 Ala. 570; McWilliams v. Phillips, 71 Ala. 80; Woodrow v. Pawning, 105 Ala. 240. Counsel discuss…
1Opinion of the CourtMayfield, J.
This was a bill, filed in the chancery court of Elmore county, to have an absolute deed *497declared a mortgage, and canceled, upon tbe ground that the indebtedness secured by the intended mortgage had been paid before the filing of the bill. The answer of respondent to the bill admitted the execution of the deed by complainant to respondent as alleged, and that it was intended as a mortgage — in other words, that the whole transaction was a security for debt, and not a sale, and that at the time of the execution of the deed by complainant to respondent the respondent also executed a bond for…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Knaus v. DreherSupreme Court of Alabama · 1887
- Richter v. NollSupreme Court of Alabama · 1900
- Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad v. WheelerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1899
3Cited by1 opinion
- Corley v. VizardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1919