Billingsley v. Harrell
Supreme Court of Alabama
Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Perry. DetiNue, by Billingsley against Harrell, to recover certain slaves. At the trial the plaintiff read in evidence a deed under date of 17th September, 1840, executed by John Huntington of the first part, William Howell of the second part, and the defendant of the third part.
Read the full summary
Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Perry. DetiNue, by Billingsley against Harrell, to recover certain slaves. At the trial the plaintiff read in evidence a deed under date of 17th September, 1840, executed by John Huntington of the first part, William Howell of the second part, and the defendant of the third part. This, after reciting that Huntington is indebted to Harrell, by four promissory notes, the first for $1740, dated 12th July, 1889, due one day afterdate, to Frederic Becton, and by him assigned 20th March, 1840, to Harrell, without recourse ; the second for $120, dated and due…
1Opinion of the CourtGoldthwaite, J.
The principal question here is as to the effect, between these parties, of the second mortgage upon the one first executed by Huntington. In the aspect in which the case is presented, we deem it unimportant to inquire whether the first mortgage might not be set up to protect the property against a subsequently acquired lien, because if that effect is conceded, it does not follow the present defendant may assert a title under it as against that arising out of the one afterwards executed and accepted by him. It seems to us that the legitimate inference from the facts stated is, that the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Van Rensselaer's Heirs v. PennimanNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- Foster v. GoreeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1843
- Fitch v. BaldwinNew York Supreme Court · 1819
3Cited by2 opinions
- Boyd v. BeckSupreme Court of Alabama · 1857
- Sylacauga Lodge, No. 200 v. McGheeAlabama Court of Appeals · 1919