Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

132 Ala. 134

Pulliam v. Hicks

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 20, 1901

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1901-12-20

Heard before Hon. Richard B. Kelly. Bill for tbe foreclosure of a mortgage executed by W. C. Pulliam and Maria Pulliam to Hicks, Lee & Co., a firm composed of T. A. Hicks, A. B. Lee and J. E. Heard, and transferred to T. A. Hicks, tbe complainant. The defendant Maria Pulliam filed a cross-bill, alleging that said mortgage was given on ber property to secure ber husband’s debt, and praying a cancellation thereof for this reason.

Relies on Summerhill v. Tapp

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1901-12-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1934

3 state decisions

101901191019201930decided

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.

¶1— The question involved on this review is one of fact. It is whether the mortgage sought to be foreclosed by the original bill and to be cancelled by the cross-bill of Mariali Pulliam was made to secure the debt of W. C. Pulliam, the husband. The note and mortgage purport to be the joint obligations of both Mariah and her husband. The fact that, the husband’s name appears to have been subscribed first and the wife’s last is of no significance. No presumption, either of law or fact, can be indulged on that account, that he was the principal and she the surety.—Summerhill v. Tapp, 52 Ala. 227. The note and mortgage appearing on their face to be ¡the joint obligation of the two, the burden was on the wife to show that she executed them as surety for her husband. We are of the opinion that she has failed to discharge the burden.

¶2Affirmed.

/132/ala/134 · .json · Public domain