Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

123 Ala. 594

Clark v. Wright, Henderson & Rainer

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1898

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1898-11-15

Tried before the Hon. J. W. Foster. This was an action brought by the appellant, J. W. Clark, against the appellees, Wright, Henderson & Rainer, to recover the statutory penalty of two hundred dollars, for the failure of the defendants to enter upon the margin of the record, the payment of a mortgage made by the plaintiff to the defendants. The cause was tried on issue joined on the plea of the general issue.

Relies on Steiner & Bro. v. Snow · Perryman & Co. v. Smith

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1898-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1939

4 state decisions

2018981900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

TYSON, J.

¶1The statute requires a mortgagee whose mortgage has been fully paid or satisfied, Avhen the mortgage is of record, on request in writing of the mortgagor, to "enter the fact of payment or satisfaction on the margin of the record of the mortgage. If he fails for two months after such request to make such entry, he forfeits to the mortgagor two hundred dollars, unless there is pending or there, is instituted a suit within that time in Avhich the fact of payment or satisfaction is or may be contested. — Code, § 1066.

¶2It has been repeatedly decided that no particular form of words is necessary to constitute a sufficient request, *596The statute requires that the written notice should contain words such as to reasonably inform- the mortgagee that the performance of the statutory duty is requested. No such duty of performance arises where the language used, as here, simply informed him under the most favorable construction of the words employed that it was a cancellation of a note upon the record that was desired by the mortgagor.—Steiner v. Snow, 80 Ala. 45; Perryman v. Smith, 105 Ala. 573.

¶3- ■ There was no error committed by the trial court in excluding the written notice, and in giving the affirmative charge for defendants.

¶4Affirmed.

/123/ala/594 · .json · Public domain