Legal Opinion
Fendley v. Smith
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided January 12, 1928No. 6 Div. 983PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.
The bill is by a second mortgagee against the mortgagor to foreclose, without interference with the rights of the first mortgagee, and declares its subordination thereof. The right of holder of the superior title is not questioned, and is not a necessary party. The subject of proper and necessary parties was discussed in Hodge v. Joy, 207 Ala. 198, 92 So. 171; Whiteman v. Taber, 203 Ala. 496, 83 So. 595. That is to say, the foreclosure of the second mortgage did not seek to disturb the rights of the first mortgagee, and recognized the same as being paramount to the lien of appellee mortgagee,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Hodge v. JoySupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
- Ware v. Hamilton Brown Shoe Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- Whiteman v. TaberSupreme Court of Alabama · 1919
- Bingham v. VandegriftSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- Kelly v. LongshoreSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Hester v. First Nat. Bank of RussellvilleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1939
- Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. BrunsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
- Rogers v. GonzalezSupreme Court of Alabama · 1949
- Atlas Subsidiaries of Mississippi, Inc. v. NixonCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1971
- Long v. Monroe County BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.