Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

133 Ala. 630

Motes v. Robertson

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1901

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1901-11-15

Heard before the Hon. William L. Parks. The bill in this case was filed by the appellant, M. E. Motes, against the appellees, Dick Roberson. and Mary J. Roberson, his wife, for. he purpose of having a mortgage executed by the defendants to the Edinburgh American Land Mortgage Company and another mortgage executed by the defendants to the Loan Company of Alabama, equitably assigned to the complainant, and at the same time praying that the complainant be subrogated to the lien…

Relies on Faulk v. Calloway

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1901-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 1935

9 state decisions

301901191019201930decided

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 →

MoCLELLAN, C. J.

¶1It is laid down by Mr. Pomeroy that “The doctrine [of equitable assignment] is also justly extended, by analogy, to one who, having no previous interest, and being under no obligation, pays off the mortgage, or advances money for its payment, at the instance of a debtor party and for his benefit, such person is in no true sense a mere stranger and volunteer.” The doctrine thus stated has recently been approved and applied by this court, (Faulk et al. v. Galloway, 123 Ala. 325) ; and it is believed not to be inconsistent with any of our previous adjudications. *632Applying it to the facts averred in the present bill, the conclusion must be that the. bill presents a case for equitable relief' by way of subrogation to the lien of the mortgage given by Dick Roberson to the Mortgage Company for. the reimbursement of complainant in respect of the sums she paid, directly or indirectly, at his instance and request on the mortgage debt. Our conclusion is, therefore, that the chancellor erred in dismissing the bill for want of equity.

¶2Reversed and remanded. -

/133/ala/630 · .json · Public domain