Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

59 Ala. 403

Bibb v. Hawley

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1877

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1877-12-15

Heard before the Hon. HuRlOSCO Attsttll. Thomas B. Hawley, a resident citizen of the State of New 'York, filed a bill of complaint in the Chancery Court of Montgomery county, against J. DuBose Bibb, to foreclose a mortgage executed by Bibb and E. G. Bibb, his wife, to E. H. Morrison & Co. The mortgage was made to secure a bill of exchange for five thousand three hundred and twenty dollars, dated on the 23d of November, 1872, and payable on the first day of June, 1873, to E.…

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1935

2 state decisions

Relies on Prout v. Hoge · McMaken v. McMaken · Woodward v. Wood

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1877-12-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BRICKELL, C. J.—

¶1The argument of appellant’s counsel, is devoted mainly to a discussion of the legality of the contract made by appellant with Morrison & Co. A consideration of that question, on examining the record, we find the parties have by agreement waived, and there would be a manifest impropriety in the expression of any opinion in reference to it.

¶2The remaining ground of error insisted on, the failure to make the mortgagee in whom the legal title resides, a party is however fatal to the decree. The uniform course of decision in this court, is, that to a bill for foreclosure, by the transferree of a mortgage debt, the mortgage not having been assigned to him, so as to pass the legal estate, the mortgagee is an indispensable party.—Prout v. Hoge, 57 Ala. 28. The omission of an indispensable party, is available on error, though objection was not made in the court of chancery. McMaken v. McMaken, 18 Ala. 576; Woodward v. Wood, 19 Ala. 213.

¶3The decree must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Stone, J., not sitting.
/59/ala/403 · .json · Public domain