State journal & flag., 1846-12-25
Journal & Clag,
TUSCALOOSA, DEC. 25, 1876.

We publish, below, review of the opin-
ion of Judge CRAWFORD, in the case o! King
IL Ward, Us. the Tuscumbia, Courtand,
and Decatur Rail Road Company, the
Branch Bank at Decatur, and others. We
regret that our columns are SO much
crowded as TO prevent us from, also, pub
fishing the opinion Of Judge G. II has been
published, however, in the Huntsville Advo.
cate, and Tuscaloosa Monitor, and those
who leel an interest 10 the matter will have
no difficulty in procuring it, in one or the
other, Of these journals.
To The Editor of the Journal and Flag:
SIa-As uniformity Of decision is mat.
ter of the utmost moment 10 the people of
The Safe, | shall mske no apology for
asking the attention of your readers, to
the following brief review of the recent
decision made by His Honor Judge Craw
Court IF the United States at Huntsville in
the case Of King and Ward Us. The Tuscum.
bia, Cnurand, and Decatur Rail Road Co,
10 which he calls in question decision of
the Supreme Cour. OF this State. | may
remark, however, that should MT trouble
YOU with this communication, if the opinion
of Judge Crawford, written by himself had
not appeared in the Southern Advocate of
the 81 inst the manifest purpose of which, is
10 show ;hat hte decision Of the Supreme
Court of this State. is not law. in which
opinion think it will appear on examina.
ton, that His Honor the District Judge is
mistaken. The case called in question by
him is Williams and Battle Us. Jones, 2
Ala. Rep. 3l4. This case, is professedly
founded on The case of McGregor and Oar
ling Us. Hall, 81 Stewart, page 397. My
acquaintance with the Judges who have
occupied nur Supreme Court bench since
1882. enables me to s,eak Understandings
of the question originally settled by this
decision. To my Knowledge the present
of McGrrgor & Darling u.s. Hall on the
Circuit, and there held, that the interest Of
the mnrtgagor could not be sold under an
execution al law; and the report shows
that h was ovcrrued by the Unanimous
opinion Of Judges. Lipscombe, Safold. and
T,ylor. who then composed the bench.
This Gee ision did not meet the entire ap-
probation of the bar, though il must he
admitted their Honors gave the Case much
consideration, and we're perfectly aware
that they opposed the current Of the earlier
derissi0ns.
-Four years afterwards, the question was
ngnin raised in Perkins and Elliott rs. May
field, s Porter 1872, whether mere equity
oi redemption in personal property unac.
companied by possession in the morigngor,
could be rac' ell by OK cution a law.
The Court. composed Of Hopkins, G.. J. and
Judges Collier and Goldthwaite. disavow.
ing any intention of overriding the decision
of their predecessors, determined. that rs
The morg 'gor had parted with The possession
his interest was but naked equity. and
was not subject to sale by execution. Will
liams and Battle ps. Jones was decided four
years after by the present bench of Judges,
and the court again express their disnppro.
baton of the case of McGregor and Dar-
ling rs. Hall, and their conviction that duty
required Them to adhere to it. Judge
Crawford asserts, in the opinion written by
him, that the two cases are not ut all similar