Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

62 Ala. 302

Renfro v. Adams

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1878

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1878-12-15

Tried before Hon. James E. Cobb. The appellee, William G. Adams, brought this action against the appellants, Renfro & Andrews, to recover the statutory penalty for their failure to enter satisfaction, on the record, of a mortgage made by him to them, for more than three months after the payment of the debt secured thereby, after demand, &c. The complaint “claims of the defendants the sum of two hundred dollars due from defendants to plaintiff by reason of a failure on the…

Relies on New York & Alabama Contracting Co. v. Selma Savings Bank

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1878-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 1938

7 state decisions

301878188018901900191019201930decided

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 →

BRICKELL, C. J.

¶1The action was brought to recover the penalty of two hundred dollars, which is imposed by § 2223 of the Code, upon any mortgagee who fails, on the request of the mortgagor, for three months, to enter on the record of the" mortgage satisfaction thereof, after the payment of the mortgage debt.

¶2Several objections to the complaint are made by demurrer, which we do not think are well taken. The facts necessary to support the action, are presented in an intelligible form and with clearness. The material questions seem to be, whether notice or a request to each of the mortgagees, who were partners, to enter satisfaction of the mortgage, was necessary to render them jointly liable for the penalty; and whether the failure to enter satisfaction must not have been wilful and intentional, before the penalty is incurred. These questions must be answered negatively.

¶3The general rule resulting from the unity of a partnership, is, that when notice or a request is necessary to fix its liability, it may be given to the one, and is notice or request to all the partners. — New York & Alabama Con. Co. v. Selma Savings Bank, 51 Ala. 305.

¶4The failure of the mortgagee, whether wilful, intentional, or merely negligent or inadvertent, subjects him to liability for the penalty. It is against his negligence or inadvertence, as well as his wilfulness, the statute intends to protect the mortgagor, or the party aggrieved. Whether there may not be circumstances which would relieve him from liability, such as his physical or mental inability to comply with the request, it is not necessary to consider. But when the failure is the result of mere inadvertence or inattention, or indifference, the penalty is incurred. The rulings of the circuit court were in accordance with these views, and its judgment is affirmed.

/62/ala/302 · .json · Public domain