Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

45 Ala. 168

Ray v. Adams

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 15, 1871

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1871-01-15

Heard before Hon. Adam C. Felder. Adams filed his bill to foreclose a mortgage upon certain real estate, given to secure payment of the purchase money. Edward Fitzpatrick, the purchaser, and James Eay, an execution créditor of Fitzpatrick, were made defendants. Eay admitted the superiority of Adams’ lien, but chaiged in a cross bill that his execution had been levied on the mortgaged premises.

Relies on Watson v. Simpson · Lamar v. Gunter · Hale v. Cummings

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1871-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently May 1935

1 district · 7 state decisions

301871188018901900191019201930decided

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 →

B. F. SAFFOLD, J.

¶1The point, at issue is, which is the superior right, the debtor’s claim to the exemption of his homestead, or that of his creditor to the payment of his judgment ?

¶2Notwithstanding Adams, by his contract, had a lien which excluded Fitzpatrick’s privilege of exemption against him, and between him and Eay he might have been required to sell the land in parcels so as to preserve the rights of the subsequent creditor; yet, the right of exemption came in next to the contract lien. It was prior to the lien of the judgment, and even if not, would have prevailed over it.— Watson v. Simpson, 5 Ala. 233; Hale v. Cummings, 3 Ala. 398; Lamar v. Gunter, 39 Ala. 324; Eev. Code, §§ 2880, 2884.

¶3If a judgment creditor may put his debtor to the selection of his homestead, and sell a portion of his property not protected by it, and then require a mortgagee of the whole to apply the homestead first to the satisfaction of his mortgage, he would deprive the debtor of his homestead, which he could not do if there was no mortgage. How can the mortgage thus enlarge his remedy ?

¶4The decree is affirmed.

/45/ala/168 · .json · Public domain