¶1The decree may, so far as it entitles the appellee to priority of payment, over the mortgage to Mrs. John, depart from the agreement of the parties, and if she was complaining the error would perhaps compel a reversal. But she did not join in the appeal, nor in the assignment of errors. The mortgagors are the only parties appellant, and they are bound for the payment of the debt to the appellee, and the mortgage debt to Mrs. John, and have no interest in the matter of priority of right to chafge the lands. In any event, as to them, the lands are subject to the payment of both debts, and they are not injured, and can not be, by according priority to either debt. A party is not allowed to obtain a reversal because of errors not injurious to him. The decree is affirmed as to the appellants.
58 Ala. 460
Bethune v. Oates
Decided December 15, 1877
Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1877-12-15
<p> Bill in Equity to Condemn Lands for Satisfaction of Mortgage Debt. </p> <p>Harm without injury; what not cause for reversal. — Where mortgagors and their lands are bound in any event for the payment of debts to different persons, it is no injury to them to give priority to either debt; hence they can not complain of a decree condemning lands for satisfaction of a mortgage, on the ground that it erroneously gave one debt a preference over the other— although the case would, perhaps, be reversible, if a party actually aggrieved had complained.</p>
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1894
1 state decisions
Cited in Black's (1910)’s definition of “Money” · Black's (1910)’s definition of “Money demand”
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1877-12-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →