Legal Opinion
Maulitz v. Jones
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided March 12, 1931No. 6 Div. 779PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.
The bill was for foreclosure of mortgage on real property, and the several and successive owners thereof were made parties respondent.
The joinder of necessary and proper parties in the case of successive conveyances of property to bring the whole title before the court has been repeatedly considered, and need not now be restated. 41 C. J. 737, § 789; 27 Cyc. 1351, 1352; Hodge v. Joy, 207 Ala. 198, 92 So. 171; People’s Savings Bank v. Jordan, 200 Ala. 500, 76 So. 442; National Surety Co. v. Coleman, 213 Ala. 377, 104 So. 821.
It is further understood that on demurrer the pleading challenged is…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Miller v. StewartSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Hodge v. JoySupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
- Calvo v. . DaviesNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Owings v. McKenzieSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- Paine v. . JonesNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Stapler v. AndersonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933
- McKleroy v. DishmanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
- Continental Casualty Co. v. BrawnerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
- Planters' Warehouse & Commission Co. v. BarnesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1934
- Burns v. AustinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.