Flowers v. Barker

Decided December 15, 1885

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1885-12-15

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on the 26th February, 1885, by George W. Barker against B. L. Flowers; and sought the foreclosure of a mortgage on a tract of land. The mortgage, a copy of which was made an exhibit to the bill, was dated the 2Sth December, 1883, and purported to secure the payment of a promissory note for $1,319.05, which was of even date with the mortgage, and payable on the 1st January, 1885.

Relies on Preston & Stetson v. McMillan · Hunt v. Acre · Andrews & Bros. v. Jones

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1885-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1957

3 state decisions

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 →

STONE, C. J.

¶1At and. before the execution of the mortgage which the present bill seeks to foreclose, the legal title of *446the premises was in B. L. Flowers, the mortgagor. The legal title was therefore brought before the court. If Mrs. Flowers has any claim to, or interest in the land, it accrued before the mortgage was executed ; and, from anything apparent in this record, it conld, under the extremest possible view, rise to no higher dignity than an equitable right to trace her money into the land.—Preston v. McMillan, 58 Ala. 84. It was not improper to make her a party; for had she been, the decree would have established or barred her rights or claim. Not being a party, the decree does not affect her.—Andrews v. Jones, 10 Ala. 400; Branch Bank v. Hodges, 12 Ala. 118; Hunt v. Acre, 28 Ala. 580; Walker v. Elledge, 65 Ala. 51. She was not, however, a necessary party.—2 Jones Mort. § 1439, and notes.

¶2Affirmed.