Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. West Blocton Sav. Bank
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the CourtAnderson, C. J.
The facts are fully set out in the opinion of the Court of Appeals per Rice, J.
It seems to be a well-settled rule of law that a mortgagee in possession not only has the right, but it is his duty, to preserve and keep the property in repair. 19 R. C. L. 332, § 106; Miller v. Ward, 111 Me. 134, 88 A. 400, 49 B. R. A. (N. S.) 122, and note; Dozier v. Mitchell, 65 Ala. 511. And to this end he is entitled to include the reasonable expense incurred in the mortgage indebtedness upon an accounting. Zadek v. Burnett, 176 Ala. 80, 57 So. 447. True, this cost should primarily be collected upon a…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Dozier v. MitchellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
- Bolling v. TateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
- Zadek v. BurnettSupreme Court of Alabama · 1912
- Miller v. WardSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1913
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. WalkerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1909
3Cited by6 opinions
- Yellen v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New YorkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Rodgers v. DixonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1940
- Alabama Cablevision Co. v. LeagueCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1982
- Hawk v. MooreSupreme Court of Alabama · 1959
- De Moville v. Merchants & Farmers BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1939
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.