Hurt v. Freeman
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Puryear v. Smith (Ala. 1937)
- Watson v. Watson (Ala. 1934)
- Hill v. Johnson (Ala. 1925)
- Channell v. Deal Lumber Co. (Ala. 1923)
- Dixie Industrial Co. v. Benson (Ala. 1918)
- Lessley v. Prater (Ala. 1917)
- Carling v. Wilson (Ala. 1912)
- Hayes v. Martin (Ala. 1906)
- Neely v. Goodwin (Ala. 1890)
- Bright v. Buckman (United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of Florida 1889)
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Boykin (Ala. 1884)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
A bill for the foreclosure of a mortgage should so describe the mortgaged property, that, if a sale is ordered, the officer of the court may with certainty and safety execute the decree, and that purchasers may be informed of the particular premises which are exposed to sale, and which they can acquire. — Long v. Pace, 42 Ala. 495; Williams v. Roe, 59 Ala. 629; Whitney v. Beal, 5 Blackf. 143. If the mortgage is not certain in its description of the premises upon which it operates, and it is capable of being rendered certain by reference to extrinsic facts, these facts should be averred in the bill.
Beversed and remanded.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.