Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

72 Ala. 351

Boyle v. Williams

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1882

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1882-12-15

Heard before the Hon. Juro. A. Fosteb. The bill in this case was filed on September 7th, 1880, by Patsey Williams, against the widow and children of Daniel Boyle, deceased; and sought the foreclosure of a mortgage, which said Daniel Boyle had executed to the Central Building and Loan Association, a private corporation organized under the general laws, and doing business in the city of Montgomery.

Relies on Prout v. Hoge · McMaken v. McMaken · Dooley v. Villalonga

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1882-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 1929

5 state decisions

2018821890190019101920decided

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 →

BBICKELL, C. J.

¶1The bill discloses that there is a personal representative of the deceased mortgagor, his widow, who joined with him in executing the mortgage; and yet fails to make her a party in her representative capacity. It is the settled rule in this State, that to a bill to foreclose a mortgage on lands, the personal representative of the deceased mortgagor is an essential party, as representing the personal estate, unless it is shown that the assets in his hands to be administered are discharged from all liability for the mortgage debt.Dooley v. Villalonga, 61 Ala. 129. While it is the general rule, that an objection for the want of parties must be taken by demurrer, or by plea, or be insisted on in the answer; yet the want of an indispensable party, in whose absence a decree can not be properly rendered, may be taken advantage of on the hearing, or on error.—McMaken v. McMaken, 18 Ala. 576; Prout v. Hoge, 57 Ala. 28.

¶2The heirs of the deceased mortgagor are infants; and a decree for the sale of the entire mortgaged premises was rendered, without a reference to the register to ascertain and report, whether the premises were susceptible of division; whether a sale of a part would not satisfy the mortgage debt; whether the interest of the infants did not require a sale in parcels, and the parcel which should be first sold. A decree of sale of mortgaged lands which have descended to infants, or other persons-not sui juris, is irregular without such a reference. — 2 Brick. Dig. 260, § 169. If the parties are sui juris, and do not in the Court of Chancery suggest or claim the reference, on error they will be deemed to have waived it.—Ticknor v. Leavens, 2 Ala. 149. The rule is otherwise, as to parties laboring under disabilities.

¶3We do not deem it necessary to consider any of the other assignments of error, as the matters to w'hich they refer, so far as of importance, can be remedied in the futui’e progress of the cause in the Court of Chancery.

¶4For the errors pointed out, thé decree must be reversed, and the cause remanded.

/72/ala/351 · .json · Public domain