Case ID: ala_200/html/0200-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ANDERSON, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(75 South. 958)
    GILCHRIST v. JOHNSON.
    (8 Div. 15.)
    (Supreme Court of Alabama.
    May 31, 1917.)
    Mortgages <&wkey;298(3) — Payment oe Mortgage Debt.
    Where the consideration for a receipt given by a mortgagee’s agent arose from settlement of individual matters between the agent and the mortgagor, -the only money passing between them being a few dollars to strike a proper balance, there was no such payment of the mortgage debt as was binding on the mortgagee.
    [Ed. Note. — -For other cases, see Mortgages, Cent. Dig. §§ 841, 843-846, 864.]
    Appeal from Chancery Court, Morgan County; James E. Horton, Jr., Chancellor.
    Bill by John W. Gilchrist against Mary J. Johnson, to enjoin the foreclosure of a mortgage, and for an accounting and redemption. Decree for respondent, and complainant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Callahan & Harris, of Decatur, for appellant.
    Sample & Kilpatrick, of Cullman', for appellee.
   ANDERSON, C. J.

We agree with the chancery court that while it may be conceded that Poteet was the agent of Mrs. Johnson and had authority-to bind her by receiving payments on the mortgage indebtedness, tlie credit to Gilchrist for which a receipt was given in the first part of 1910 of $100 was not such a payment of the mortgage debt as would be binding on the mortgagee. It is evident that the consideration for the receipt was not such a payment in money as would be binding upon Mrs. Johnson, the mortgagee, but arose from a settlement of individual matters between Poteet and Gilchrist, and that the only money that passed between them was a few dollars for the purpose of striking a proper balance between the parties.

The decree of the chancery court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

McCLELLAN, SAYRE, and GARDNER, JJ., concur.