Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

69 Ala. 484

Hooper v. Yonge

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1881

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1881-12-15

Heard before Lion. N. S. Graham. On the 11th June, 1875, the Chancery Court of Lee county, in a suit then pending in that court, wherein George D. and George W. Hooper were complainants, and ~W. O. and M. A. Yonge were defendants, rendered a decree of foreclosure of a mortgage executed by the defendants to the complainants, and ordered a sale of the lands conveyed thereby for the payment of the mortgage debt.

Relies on Thompson v. Campbell · Creighton v. Paine · Trammel v. Simmons

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1881-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently June 1925

11 state decisions

4018811890190019101920decided

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 →

SOMEBYILLE, J.

¶1Courts of chancery have authority, both by their common law jurisdiction and under the express provisions of the statute, to issue writs of assistance, or possession, for *486the purpose of enforcing their decrees or orders, and in the exercise of this power, they can compel the delivery of personal property, or the possession of land, by any of the parties to the suit, by'persons coming into posession pendente lite, or by mere naked tresspassers. — Johnson & Seats v. Taylor, at present term; Code, 1876, § 3906; Trammel v. Simmons, 8 Ala. 271; Creighton v. Paine, 2 Ala. 158.

¶2But this right is largely discretionary, and will not ordinarily be exercised without application supported by affidavit, showing due service of the decree or order of the court sought to be enforced, an.d that it has not been obeyed; and, according to-the better practice, <notice of the motion requesting the issue of the writ should be given to the adverse party. Creighton v. Paine, supra; Devaucene v. Devaucene, 1 Edw. (N. Y.) 272 2 Daniell’s Ch. Prac. 1062-63; Thompson v. Campbell, 57 Ala. 183.

¶3So it is plain, that, being summary in its character, the writ should be refused by the court when the purchaser, seeking the aid of it to enforce his possession, has been guilty of such delay as to leave it doubtful whether or not he has given to the person in possession the right to remain. The rule, in other words, is to refuse the writ except in clear cases. — 2 Dan. Ch. Pr. (5th Ed.) 1063, note 3; Barton v. Beatty, 28 N. J. Eq. Rep. 412; Kershaw v. Thompson, 4 Johns. Ch. Rep. 609.

¶4The petitioners in this case have allowed between six and seven years to elapse from the day of their purchase of the lands in controversy to the date of filing the application. The reasonable presumption in such a case is, that the party in possession holds as a tenant of the purchaser, or under other like claim of right. This is not negatived by the petition or by any proof, and on this ground we are of opinion that the chancellor did not err in refusing the relief prayed.

¶5Affirmed.

/69/ala/484 · .json · Public domain