-
The original bill was by the mortgagor to enjoin a sale of the property under the mortgage, sought an accounting and the payment of the mortgage debt. Respondent answered and sought by cross-bill affirmative relief; that is, the foreclosure of the mortgage. A cross-bill, or answer in the nature of a cross-bill, was essential to a foreclosure and which could not be decreed without same. Bedell v. New Eng. Mtg. Secty. Co.,
91 Ala. 325 ,8 So. 494 ; Ketchum v. Creagh,53 Ala. 224 ; Davis v. Cook,65 Ala. 617 .The fact that a mortgage contains a power of sale does not deprive an equity court of jurisdiction of an action to foreclose, and the mortgagee may file a crossbill to foreclose when the original bill seeks an injunction and cancellation. Vaughan v. Marable,
64 Ala. 60 . The mortgage expressly provides for an attorney's fee for a foreclosure in equity.The trial court did not err in overruling the appellants' demurrer to the cross-bill, and the decree of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
SOMERVILLE, THOMAS, and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.
Document Info
Docket Number: 4 Div. 137.
Citation Numbers: 101 So. 185, 211 Ala. 585, 1924 Ala. LEXIS 309
Judges: Anderson, Somerville, Thomas, Bould
Filed Date: 6/30/1924
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024