Hill v. Carlisle

6 Citing cases

  1. Farmers Ginners Cotton Oil Company v. Hogan

    100 So. 2d 761 (Ala. 1958)   Cited 15 times

    Saltmarsh v. Tuthill, 13 Ala. 390; Smith v. Lehman Durr Co., 85 Ala. 394, 5 So. 204; Hart v. Adler, 109 Ala. 467, 19 So. 894; Southern Home Building Loan Ass'n v. Riddle, 129 Ala. 562, 29 So. 667; Clark v. Johnson, 133 Ala. 432, 31 So. 960, 961; Lewis v. Hickman, 200 Ala. 672, 77 So. 46. Therefore, a junior mortgagee who acquires a mortgage lien in good faith, for a valuable consideration, and without notice, actual or constructive, of the usurious mortgage, acquires an equity superior to that of the usurious mortgagee, and can assert against him any defense which would have been available had the claim been made by the mortgagor. Carlisle v. Hill, 16 Ala. 398; Wailes Co. v. Couch, 75 Ala. 134; Farley National Bank v. Henderson, 118 Ala. 441, 24 So. 428; 2 Pom.Eq.Jur., (5th Ed.) § 414; 59 C.J.S. Mortgages § 283. When the indebtedness secured by a mortgage is tainted with usury, the mortgagee who made the usurious loan is not entitled to equitable relief in aid of and to enforce the mortgage unless and until he purges the debt of usury by offering to rebate all interest. Hawkins v. Pearson, 96 Ala. 369, 11 So. 304; 2 Pom.Eq.Jur. (5th Ed.) § 391.

  2. Alabama Power Co. v. Buck

    35 So. 2d 355 (Ala. 1948)   Cited 38 times

    Holman v. Brady, supra; Griffith Freight Lines v. Benson, supra; Buffalo Rock Co. v. Davis, 228 Ala. 603, 154 So. 556; Porterfield v. Life Casualty Co., 242 Ala. 102, 5 So.2d 71; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Anchors, 114 Ala. 492, 22 So. 279, 62 Am.St.Rep. 116; Richmond D. R. Co. v. Vance, 93 Ala. 144, 9 So. 574, 30 Am.St.Rep. 41. The court erred in charging the jury orally that wantonness or subsequent negligence was an issue which it should consider, and in giving charge B for plaintiff; there being no evidence of any wanton conduct or subsequent negligence on the part of defendant. Holman v. Brady, supra; Anniston Electric Gas Co. v. Anderson, 11 Ala. App. 554, 66 So. 924; Carlisle v. Hill, 16 Ala. 398; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. McNab, 150 Ala. 332, 43 So. 222; Alabama City G. A. R. Co. v. Cox, 173 Ala. 629, 55 So. 909; Thomas v. Carter, 218 Ala. 55, 117 So. 634. D. G. Ewing, of Birmingham, and F. F. Windham, of Tuscaloosa, for appellee.

  3. Kahalley v. Kahalley

    28 So. 2d 792 (Ala. 1947)   Cited 22 times

    In giving proponent's requested charge the court invaded the province of the jury; it ignored other matters of undue influence. Bancroft v. Otis, 91 Ala. 279, 8 So. 286, 24 Am.St.Rep. 904; Coghill v. Kennedy, 119 Ala. 641, 24 So. 459; Raney v. Raney, 216 Ala. 30, 112 So. 313; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Young, 168 Ala. 551, 53 So. 213; Newton v. Jackson, 23 Ala. 335; Carlisle v. Hill, 16 Ala. 398; Tait v. Murphy, 80 Ala. 440, 2 So. 317; Amzi Godden Seed Co. v. Smith, 185 Ala. 296, 64 So. 100; Bynum v. State, 216 Ala. 102, 112 So. 348. Charge C is a good charge, not abstract, and its refusal was error. Coghill v. Kennedy, supra; Lewis v. Martin, 210 Ala. 401, 98 So. 635.

  4. Chandler v. Birmingham News Co.

    95 So. 886 (Ala. 1923)   Cited 1 times

    sdom v. Reeves, 110 Ala. 418, 18 So. 13; Marks v. Robinson, 82 Ala. 69, 2 So. 292; Interstate Am. Co. v. Martin, 8 Ala. App. 481, 62 So. 404; Tutwiler C. C. Iron Co. v. Nichols, 145 Ala. 666, 39 So. 762; Id. 146 Ala. 364, 39 So. 762, 119 Am. St. Rep. 34. Facts and circumstances which, if proved, are incapable of affording a just, reasonable inference or presumption in relation to a material fact involved in the issue on which the jury are to pass, are irrelevant and inadmissible. Karr v. State, 106. Ala. 1, 17 So. 328; Governor v. Campbell, 17 Ala. 566; State v. Wisdom, 8 Port. (Ala.) 511; Steen v. Swadley, 126 Ala. 616, 28 So. 620; Seals v. Edmondson, 71 Ala. 509; Birmingham Nat. Bank v. Bradley, 108 Ala. 205, 19 So. 791; Cofer v. Scroggins, 98 Ala. 342, 13 So. 115, 39 Am. St. Rep. 54; Moore v. Nashville, C. R. Co., 137 Ala. 495, 34 So. 617; Brown v. Prude, 97 Ala. 639, 11 So. 838. A charge based on a hypothetical state of facts directly opposed to the evidence should not be given. Carlisle v. Hill, 16 Ala. 398; Selma, etc., Co. v. Campbell, 158 Ala. 438, 48 So. 378. Percy, Benners Burr, of Birmingham, for appellee.

  5. Schneider v. Sellers

    98 Tex. 380 (Tex. 1905)   Cited 31 times

    In the case under consideration there was no fraud practiced upon nor misrepresentation made to Schneider Davis nor their creditors, nor was there any bad faith toward any person, hence the rule announced is not applicable to the case under consideration. Counsel for appellees rely upon Ramsdell v. Morgan, 16 Wendell, 574; Keutgen v. Parks, 2 Sanford S.C., 60; Wailes v. Couch, 75 Ala. 134; Carlisle v. Hill, 16 Ala. 398; Smith v. Lehman, 85 Ala. 394. The cases of Ramsdell v. Morgan and Keutgen v. Parks were virtually overruled by the Court of Appeals of New York in Williams v. Tilt, 36 N.Y. 325, wherein the court held that usury in a contract under which title was acquired could only be set up by the party to the contract.

  6. Freedman v. Sandknop

    53 N.J. Eq. 243 (Ch. Div. 1895)   Cited 1 times

    In Ayres v. Revere the builder was to find and provide all materials according to the plans and specifications, except where it was otherwise stipulated, expressed, or agreed in the specifications; and there, of course, the extent of his obligation could not be ascertained unless reference was had to the specifications. In Hill v. Carlisle, 14 N. J. Law J. 114, the contractor was to provide materials for completing and finishing all the "mason and other work" of the building "mentioned in the mason's specifications." This, too, was manifestly a contract limited to part of the work on the building, which part could be ascertained only by inspection of the specifications.